Not by a hair of my chiny chin chin....

[CountArach]

Socialism is not really about helping the poor. It's about increasing the power of the state.

Want proof? Count the threads on this forum. I have yet to find one encouraging org members to give to charity. I found a few dozen in no time where org members supported repressive government policies.

Look at the number of threads where people talk about social welfare, not to mention healthcare - the majority of people favour increased social spending, only the vocal minority here don't support it. The number of threads asking people to donate to charity is not a valid representation of the leanings of the forum and I don't know how you could possibly think it is a good judge.

Socialist, maybe not. But are they on the left? Yes. At least the centre-left.

[Watchman]

And seeing as how social security etc. state-subvented services to the down-and-out are more or less institutionalised charity...

Socialism is not really about helping the poor. It's about increasing the power of the state.

If you're talking about the moderate-reformist type (which is the succesful branch most "first world" states have practised succesfully for quite a while; the radical-revolutionary version... didn't really work out), it's actually more or less about rescuing capitalism from itself by sanding down the nasty sharp bits that shred people.
The hardcore revolutionary types rather loathed the reformers for that, because they were quite effectively defusing the uprising of the oppressed proletariat long before it even started...
"Splitters!"

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What, you think Labour is on the right?

[naut]

What, you think Labour is on the right?

Britain's Labour party is definitely more right than left.

[InsaneApache]

Britain's Labour party is definitely more right than left.

Oh dear...

Big government=left. Tax and spend=left. High taxes=left. Lunatic fiscal policies=left. State intrusion into personal life=left. Papers pleese!=left. Politicisation of the police=left.

...and of course the nationalisation of the banks=left.

New Labour isn't remotely right wing, they are crypto-Stalinists who know what's best for you. To this end they will seek to control every aspect of your life, for your own good of course. Anyone who resists are at the best ungrateful buggers for wanting to spend their money the way they see fit. At the worst they are right wing, knee jerk, daily mail readers who obviously need a pre-frontal labotomy so that they may learn to think in the right way. Try reading the comments section in the Gruniad if you want a good laugh. I used to think the left were just deluded and misguided, now I think they're downright dangerous.

[CountArach]

State intrusion into personal life=left.

Errr... you mean like legalised marijuana? Gay civil unions? Greater abortion rights?

These are all left-wing causes that remove the government from the private life of its citizens.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Time to play an appropriate song...

[rory_20_uk]

Errr... you mean like legalised marijuana? Gay civil unions? Greater abortion rights?

These are all left-wing causes that remove the government from the private life of its citizens.

Evidence that the oft-used left - right wing description is not adequate.

You are referring to policies that don't really have a left - right leaning, but a place on the authoritarian - freedom access, which is unrelated to left - right.

[CountArach]

Evidence that the oft-used left - right wing description is not adequate.

You are referring to policies that don't really have a left - right leaning, but a place on the authoritarian - freedom access, which is unrelated to left - right.

So you are restricting the argument solely to economic theories? Alright then, here are some things that New Labour have done from Blair and Gordon's administrations that are clearly right-wing:
1) Reserve Bank independence.
2) Increased fees to enter university
3) Welfare-to-work
4) Various privatisation programs (Including most recently talk of the postal service...)

[Slyspy]

Oh dear...

Big government=left. Tax and spend=left. High taxes=left. Lunatic fiscal policies=left. State intrusion into personal life=left. Papers pleese!=left. Politicisation of the police=left.

...and of course the nationalisation of the banks=left.

I struggle to believe that these characteristics are found only in governments of the left. I'm fairly sure right wing governments have had all of those. Hell, even the Tories managed a fair few and it seems that even right wing governments decided to bail out their banks.

[InsaneApache]

I struggle to believe that these characteristics are found only in governments of the left. I'm fairly sure right wing governments have had all of those. Hell, even the Tories managed a fair few and it seems that even right wing governments decided to bail out their banks.

Struggle away then.

I consider myself a libertarian.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty

Not a left wing mindset is it?

[Watchman]

Oh dear...

Big government=left. Tax and spend=left. High taxes=left. Lunatic fiscal policies=left. State intrusion into personal life=left. Papers pleese!=left. Politicisation of the police=left.

...and of course the nationalisation of the banks=left.

Doesn't quite a bit of that pretty well describe what the Bush regime has been up to for the past eight or so years, Stateside ?

Pretty sure this is the first time I see Bible-thumbing pinko-Republicans classified as politically "left"...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Doesn't quite a bit of that pretty well describe what the Bush regime has been up to for the past eight or so years, Stateside ?

Pretty sure this is the first time I see Bible-thumbing pinko-Republicans classified as politically "left"...

Not exactly politically left, but I can't call them that faithful to the right either...

[Watchman]

Oh, it's very faithful to the Right all right. Or are you forgetting what exactly lies at the extreme end of that side of the Left-Right divide ?

Seems to me like someone's trying to make up some pretty tendentious political definitions here, ones that have little or nothing to do with the reality of the life political and the really existing ideologies and movements, and quite a bit with rhetorical and moral convenience...

[CountArach]

What, you think Labour is on the right?

Let's just say that I struggle to believe that the UK has room for both the Conservatives and Labour.

[Mangudai]

Look at the number of threads where people talk about social welfare, not to mention healthcare - the majority of people favour increased social spending, only the vocal minority here don't support it. The number of threads asking people to donate to charity is not a valid representation of the leanings of the forum and I don't know how you could possibly think it is a good judge.

Perhaps I was wrong to count solicitations for charity. How about raising awareness about people in desparate situations? I don't see that either. I see people whining because people lucky enough to be born in a wealthy country don't get everything they need for free.

If poverty and human dignity are the primary concerns, then the undeveloped parts of the world deserve all of our attention. Poverty in the developed world is nothing compared to poverty in some countries. 98.5% of the socialists I've ever talked to are National Socialists or Euro-Socialists.

And seeing as how social security etc. state-subvented services to the down-and-out are more or less institutionalised charity...

Except that charity also means love. State services don't capture that part.

[CountArach]

Perhaps I was wrong to count solicitations for charity. How about raising awareness about people in desparate situations? I don't see that either. I see people whining because people lucky enough to be born in a wealthy country don't get everything they need for free.

If poverty and human dignity are the primary concerns, then the undeveloped parts of the world deserve all of our attention. Poverty in the developed world is nothing compared to poverty in some countries. 98.5% of the socialists I've ever talked to are National Socialists or Euro-Socialists.

You will also find that most Socialists (At least those worthy of the name Socialist) want increased foreign aid so that we can drag these people out of the poverty cycle. However, this isn't a position that most governments are willing to take, and as such it is easier to argue for removing poverty in your home country - people are far more likely to get the message. Don't take that to mean that we believe that all poverty is equally bad, take it to mean that we are arguing for lifting poverty in countries where we can actually make a political difference.

Oh and National Socialists are not Socialists.

[Mangudai]

You will also find that most Socialists (At least those worthy of the name Socialist) want increased foreign aid so that we can drag these people out of the poverty cycle. However, this isn't a position that most governments are willing to take, and as such it is easier to argue for removing poverty in your home country - people are far more likely to get the message. Don't take that to mean that we believe that all poverty is equally bad, take it to mean that we are arguing for lifting poverty in countries where we can actually make a political difference.

Oh and National Socialists are not Socialists.

What type of government policies do the most to pull people out of poverty?

Here is a test: For each pair of countries, which has the worst poverty?

1 Argentina - Chile
2 Nicaragua - Panama
3 Haiti - Dominican Republic
4 North Korea - South Korea
5 China - Taiwan
6 Cambodia - Thailand
7 Russia - United States

If you picked the country on the left for all seven options, you are correct.

Here is another test: For each pair of countries which one historically has the more leftist government.

If you picked the country on the left for all seven options, you are correct.

QED left wing government policies are less efficient than free markets for pulling people out of poverty.

[CountArach]

1 Argentina - Chile
2 Nicaragua - Panama
3 Haiti - Dominican Republic
4 North Korea - South Korea
5 China - Taiwan
6 Cambodia - Thailand
7 Russia - United States

If you picked the country on the left for all seven options, you are correct.

Here is another test: For each pair of countries which one historically has the more leftist government.

If you picked the country on the left for all seven options, you are correct.

QED left wing government policies are less efficient than free markets for pulling people out of poverty.

Your lack of historical knowledge is astounding. For example:
1) The IMF has ruined much of Argentina's economy.
2) Nicaragua was completely destroyed by the US...
3) Haiti was completely destroyed by the US... multiple times...
4) Few would use North Korea as an example of a leftist government.
5) China has almost no shred of Socialism remaining.
6) See 2 and 4.
7) The Soviet Union had guaranteed jobs for everyone and there was no unemployment. With the fall of the SU this policy left and suddenly there was unemployment and subsequently poverty...

[Watchman]

I offer up Scandinavia as the poster child of how you do applied Leftism right. Not that say most of Western Europe has done too badly with it either...

Where exactly is he rightwing? Let's start there, first thing about the political spectrum thingie, top down vs bottom up, state control vs power of the individual.

Oh right, because the Left-Right distinction is solely about the degree of control the regime exterts on the society. And the sole difference between the two is that the Leftists are the micromanaging control freaks. How could I forget ?

Did you forget somewhere that the Nazi political program was basically ultranationalist reactionarism - both traits of the far Right - taken to something of a logical extreme and beyond ? They pretty much rejected wholesale the heritage of Enlightement ideas about universalist human equality, "as much good for as many as possible" and w/e - which conversely as it happens are the very philosophical lineage the "Marxist"/Leftist end of political spectrum largely hails from.

[Watchman]

Also, Mangu's comparision list is made of fail and tendentiousness as it entirely disregards differences in historical starting points, resources etc. Plus seems to forget most of the LatAm examples at some point of another were ruled by some kind of tyrant, military junta or similar unpleasantness with definite Right leanings (the US made sure of that, anyway). Quite often the Left-wing regimes thereafter have been busy trying to undo the damage and socioeconomic retardation those jolly folks left behind...

Also, why's Cuba not there somewhere ? Far as I know it's a decent enough place to live as LatAm states go (as long as you don't get in trouble with the authorities anyway), and by the yardstick of LatAm autocrats Castro has really been a real softy. Plus AFAIK the improvement in general standard of living, healthcare etc. under the Communist regime has been pretty noticeable compared to what was before...
Would it have muddled the grossly simplistic equation presented too much or something ?

[Fragony]

Oh right, because the Left-Right distinction is solely about the degree of control the regime exterts on the society. And the sole difference between the two is that the Leftists are the micromanaging control freaks. How could I forget ?

Did you forget somewhere that the Nazi political program was basically ultranationalist reactionarism - both traits of the far Right - taken to something of a logical extreme and beyond ? They pretty much rejected wholesale the heritage of Enlightement ideas about universalist human equality, "as much good for as many as possible" and w/e - which conversely as it happens are the very philosophical lineage the "Marxist"/Leftist end of political spectrum largely hails from.

not so much

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

That really gets the blood pumping doesn't it

[Husar]

7) The Soviet Union had guaranteed jobs for everyone and there was no unemployment. With the fall of the SU this policy left and suddenly there was unemployment and subsequently poverty...

Which leads to the fact that some actually wish the good old times back. Same with the DDR, many think living there was actually nicer, people weren't as harsh, heartless and competitive. Ripping eachother apart over a job is not exactly utopian for everybody. For every winner there is a loser. Only compromise can lead to win-win situations.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

4) Few would use North Korea as an example of a leftist government.

From Wiki:

Many commentators, journalists, and scholars outside North Korea equate Juche with Stalinism and call North Korea a Stalinist country.

Stalinism is leftist, and widely recognized as such (and if you try to say Stalinism isn't leftist, then perhaps you would care to realize that you are arguing precisely the same thing as Fragony from the other end of the spectrum?). Therefore, Juche is leftist. End.

5) China has almost no shred of Socialism remaining.

(Didn't work while they had it in full swing either.)

7) The Soviet Union had guaranteed jobs for everyone and there was no unemployment. With the fall of the SU this policy left and suddenly there was unemployment and subsequently poverty...

Guaranteed jobs, mass murder, disappearences, starvation, etcetera.

[rory_20_uk]

North Korea is a left win authoritarian state

The Soviet Union had rampant underemployment with people going to work and doing nothing useful.

[seireikhaan]

I don't suppose anyone taking part in this "enlightening" discussion would like to "enlighten" me as to the point of said exercise?

[Mangudai]

Your lack of historical knowledge is astounding. For example:
1) The IMF has ruined much of Argentina's economy.
2) Nicaragua was completely destroyed by the US...
3) Haiti was completely destroyed by the US... multiple times...
4) Few would use North Korea as an example of a leftist government.
5) China has almost no shred of Socialism remaining.
6) See 2 and 4.
7) The Soviet Union had guaranteed jobs for everyone and there was no unemployment. With the fall of the SU this policy left and suddenly there was unemployment and subsequently poverty...

Yours is worse.

1. Argentina has gone bankrupt 16 times. They've been screwing up their economy since the 1880's. It has been ruined many times before the IMF ever got involved.
2. Panama was subject to more US imperialism than Nicaragua.
3. Like when Clinton reinstated the leftist president Aristide? The Dominican Republic has a similar history of imperialism and homegrown tyrants.
4.
5. Compare China to Taiwan circa 1970. China has been getting better the more it moves away from socialism.
6. yeah yeah
7. Your praise of the Soviet Union reveals your true colors.

Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.

In case you haven't realized this yet. Taxation can only be established and maintained by force.

[Watchman]

If you haven't realized this yet... states and cohesive societies are ultimately created and maintained by force. Namely the gov't being able to smash any domestic challenger to its authority and power should it come down to that. Files under "sovereignty".

Well, it rather handsomely beats feudalism and bandit warlords.

[CountArach]

7. Your praise of the Soviet Union reveals your true colors.

You really haven't read many of my posts have you? I think that the Soviet Union had many things that were good about it and many things that we can learn from. However, I believe that the complete absence of Democracy was inexcusable. That is not a reason to completely ignore everything they ever did though.

In case you haven't realized this yet. Taxation can only be established and maintained by force.

...because we choose to give the government this authority... nor does it degrade humanity... I truly don't understand what you are trying to say...

[Mangudai]

Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.

...because we choose to give the government this authority... nor does it degrade humanity... I truly don't understand what you are trying to say...

There is no question about whether force is involved, it's simply a matter of whether force is legitimate.

A small number of people think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is part of their personality and dignity. A large number of people think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is a bad idea. "We" choose to give the government authority to force everyone to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. I say let me do things my way, so long as it doesn't affect somebody else.

Regarding taxes for social programs. If I'm required to pay for programs to support the truly unfortunate, that's OK, I won't complain. If I'm required to be a full participant in these programs, so that I must depend on the government for my retirement and my health care, I have a major problem. The former is all about helping people, the later is about control. In the US we have a program called social security which falls clearly in the latter catagory. Every year about 30 days worth of my wages are siphoned off into this ponzi scheme.