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

[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

[Watchman]

...your argument is based on taking Hitler's populist BS at face value...?

Jeez.

[Tribesman]

That really gets the blood pumping doesn't it

Wow hitler talked of unseemly evaluation of human beings

We are racists, we are enemies of today's Jews for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of the master race being according to wealth and property instead of respectable lineage, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions

[Fragony]

...your argument is based on taking Hitler's populist BS at face value...?

Jeez.

Like you do with the marxist theory's?

[Watchman]

Like you do with the marxist theory's?

Marxism at least has a proper theory, although "Really Existing Socialism" as the Soviets rather ambigiously called their system didn't actually have much to do with it.
Do explain where exactly I'm taking it at a face value, though. 'Cause I know for a fact I could write you a short essay on where the man was patently wrong... (Pretty much *no* serious academician these days employs Marxist theories in their pure, classical form; as with any viable school of thought, they have been adapted and modified and whatever as the discourse develops.)

Oh looky, a strawman. Let's BBQ!

The Nazis chiefly had delusions of racial supremacy, a raging case of ultranationalist militarism and copious amounts of wholly shameless opportunism. If they thought they had a reason to tell you black is white, they did - and changed it right back the next day if convenient.
Well, those guys did deny rationality having too much value. They didn't have to be consistent or make much sense...

Anyway, what you're patently missing with your original quote from Adolf is that the Nazis competed with the Communists over the support of the same populist-fodder demographic - angry, disenfranchised working class stiffs who'd just been royally screwed over by the Great Depression. Like any good populist movement both gleefully played the "fat cat capitalists suck" card for the benefit of the audience; among the major differences were that the Communists actually meant it (if you know anything at all about the economic policies of the Third Reich, you know the Nazis were quite cozy indeed with Big Business - as long as it served their purposes, anyway) and that the Nazis were wont to indentify those "fat cat capitalists" as Jews...
Yeah, they actually did think just about everything bad in the world was the work of a vast Jewish conspiracy for some reason hellbent on destroying the German race. I did say they didn't put much stock on rationality, no ?


As for Stalinism, fair enough - although it is actually pretty debatable how much anything at all that has in common with the principles of Marxist theory anymore. But the only thing that proves is that anything taken to extremes turns toxic and insane, and probably not too different from comparable fringe lunacy at the other end of the spectrum. (Well, the nutso-Lefties generally fail to play the nationalism card and instead claim everyone equally should be included in their "happy workers' paradise"; the Right-wing whackjobs conversely have a notable propensity for being exclusivist and racist.)
Probably also worth noting the USSR in peacetime was actually mostly a mellow enough place; the really bad happened chiefly on Stalin's watch. That guy seriously should be the illustration by the textbook definition of Dubious Management Practices.
Also, North Korea's "Juche" thingy is pretty crackpot even by Stalinist standards.

I'm incidentally a bit surprised nobody's brought up the Khmer Rouge yet. Probably because it's pretty seriously difficult to see where their stark lunacy had anything to do with any commonly recognised ideological framework, and because the Vietnamese came over and booted tham back into the jungles (and got flak from both the US and China for 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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

North Korea is a left win authoritarian state

Yes. Still left-wing.

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

"As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."

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

To answer the question "is Labour on the left?"

IA pointed out some reasons, and I believe he is generally correct. It is true that the far-right and the extreme-right also carry some of these traits, but the moderate right generally do not, and the moderate left often do. Of course, there are exceptions.

[seireikhaan]

To answer the question "is Labour on the left?"

Again: what is the point of said exercise?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Again: what is the point of said exercise?

The same as every other debate we have here. To take out excess anger on other anonymous posters.

[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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Have I made it clear yet that the authoritarianism is on a scale?

[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...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

The temperature of this thread has reached a level suitable for boiling enough water for my morning tea.

Please calm down, cut out the bad language, and respect each other's views whilst tearing them a new one.

Thank you kindly

[Hosakawa Tito]

That would be diplomacy: the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to making the trip.

[Kralizec]

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.

Such as what? That it was a somewhat egalitarian society, spreading misery equally across the vast majority of its population while rewarding the aparatchiks who labour to make it so?

By the mid '80ties the only part of the Soviet economy that wasn't mismanaged horroribly was the military industry. The USA and Soviets usually spent comparable amounts of recources on the military, but in the case of the USA this amounted to about 6 % of the GDP, for the Soviets almost 50%.

Of course, the Soviet union may not be technically marxist because the point was to make the economy subversive to democratic planning. The Soviet Union however shows quite well that command economies don't work; wich becomes even more obvious if you realize that it had a massive black market economy wich more and more people turned to.

[Mangudai]

So the main disagreement is whether authority is justified simply because it's democratic. I say it is not. Since 1870 African Americans have been full citizens with the right to vote. Nevertheless they were subject to unjust authority because the majority of voters were unjust. They did not submit to this authority "blindly", they submitted because they were forced to.

I'm not suggesting that anything in our current political debates is anywhere near that level of injustice. All I'm suggesting is that democracy can impose unjust authority.

[CountArach]

Such as what? That it was a somewhat egalitarian society, spreading misery equally across the vast majority of its population while rewarding the aparatchiks who labour to make it so?

Such as its social welfare system and the affirmative action programs it had in place for women.

By the mid '80ties the only part of the Soviet economy that wasn't mismanaged horroribly was the military industry. The USA and Soviets usually spent comparable amounts of recources on the military, but in the case of the USA this amounted to about 6 % of the GDP, for the Soviets almost 50%.

And I don't like a command-control economy.

I say let me do things my way, so long as it doesn't affect somebody else.

I completely occur, but again - what is your point?

[Watchman]

It occurs to me Mangu's sounding a whole lot like he wants to have all those nice services a modern state brings - law and order, infrastructure, communal defense, all kinds of little things that improve everybody's quality of life etc. - without having to pay his part of the bill for it...

You freeloader, you.

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.

And I hope you realize that what passes for social security in the US is regarded as a really bad joke over here, where that thing actually works and does its job...?

[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.