|
| Thread: Why I am far left |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 11, 2009 03:59 AM |
|
|
Why I am far left
Yes, I am far-left. Beyond Marx and Engels, Proudhon, Luxemburg, Mao, and Bakunin. I have come to this realization quite recently, while reading the Wikipedia article on "Left-Right politics", where it says, "the defining point on the ideological spectrum were the attitudes towards the ancien régime ("old order"). 'The Right' thus implied support for aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests, while 'The Left' implied opposition to the same." Thus, as I am opposed to "aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests", I am a left-winger - and many of those who call themselves "left-wing" are not.
Consider the great similarities between monarchism and socialism. At the top, there is the monarch and nobility, whose word is temporal law. Is there anything like that in socialism? Certainly - the central planners. So there is the Second Estate, which is "exempt from the corvée royale (forced labor on the roads) and from most other forms of taxation such as the gabelle (salt tax) and most important, the taille (the oldest form of direct taxation)" (Wikipedia). Then there is the clergy, whose duties include censoring books and acting as the moral police. Is there a similar class under socialism? Of course - the theoreticians. The bearded theoreticians sit in their luxurious Abbeys of Socialism, and think up ways to oppress the people. So there's the First Estate.
And then there's everybody else - the Third Estate. What is the Third Estate? Everything. What is it in the political order? Nothing. What does it want? To become something. And thus it is constantly beaten down by the counterrevolutionary leaders of the socialist/monarchist regime, and constantly brainwashed by the theoreticians/clergy - that their duty is to stay in their place and work for the good of all, and that they are not to question the united society.
Neither socialism nor monarchism produces a classless society - but at least monarchism is intellectually honest enough to admit it. Socialism attempts to have everything decided by the collective will of the workers, but when this becomes impossible, out come the central planners, who know what's best for everyone - and thus "deserve" a large cut of the product of everyone's labor. This results in class differences codified in the law. Just like an aristocracy.
And there's another similarity. It is not uncommon for monarchists to criticize material riches and to advocate sumptuary laws - of course, the laws differ from class to class. Of course, socialism is supposed to enhance the material well-being of the working class. The Spanish Communes, as noted by testimonials reported by Burnett Bolloten [quoted from Mises.org]:
"The committee is the paterfamilias. It owns everything; it directs everything. Every special desire has to be submitted to it for consideration; it alone has the final say."
"If someone has a girl outside the village, can he get money to pay her a visit? The peasants assure me that he can."
"I tried in vain to get a drink, either of coffee or wine or lemonade. The village bar had been closed as nefarious commerce."
"With the abolition of money, the collective held the upper hand since anyone wishing to travel had to get 'republican' money from the committee."
Bolloten further notes that "Puritanism was a characteristic of the libertarian [socialist] movement. . . excessive drinking, smoking and other practices that were perceived as middle-class attributes were nearly always censured." [pages 68–69] All in all, an inmate at a maximum security prison today has somewhat more personal freedom than those who live under socialism.
In reality, the socialists and reactionaries do not differ greatly. If Marx were to sit down with de Maistre, they would find much in common.
And thus, in my opposition to the monarchists and socialists (who, with all their similarities, may just be collectively referred to as totalitarians), I am far left. I oppose forced privation and ridiculous limits on voluntary exchange. I oppose government-grant privileges given to certain people. And I support full equality before the law - not the cronyism of socialism, or the incestuousness of aristocracy. I am one of the most extreme left-wingers there are. And Marx was one of the biggest right-wingers.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 07:07 AM |
|
|
Interesting analogy.  The method by which people can ascend to power in non-democratic socialism is also almost identical to the way that people ascend to power in the clergy/organized religion.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 09:37 AM |
|
|
Oh give up, your more like a rightving liberalist. The political scale is actually more than 1, but 2 or 3 dimensions.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 01:43 PM |
|
|
"Right-wing" liberalism is actually left-wing.
But yes, there is more than one axis.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 01:55 PM |
|
|
right wing is conservative and left-wing is progressive in a british parliament. That's where we have these terms from. The socialist and liberalist viewpoint are actually very recent connotations added to these terms.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 01:59 PM |
|
|
Actually the terms left and right in regards to politics come from France during the French Revolution, not Britain.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 02:01 PM |
|
|
Right, Mvass, if you have lived in the outgoing 18th century you would have been considered left-wing. Today, though, you are RIGHT-wing, since what WAS the blood aristocracy is NOW the money aristocracy which you are supporting by supporting liberal capitalism.
End of story.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 02:01 PM |
|
|
Oops, my mistake!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 02:52 PM |
|
|
Mvass, you are wrong, for one simple reason: socialism strives towards equality, monarchism and capitalism try to destroy it.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 03:02 PM |
|
|
Father Stalin would most definitely agree.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 03:03 PM |
|
|
Now Stalinism, on the other hand, is rather like monarchism. It's certainly reactionary, at least domestically.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 03:51 PM |
|
|
mvass is a commie? 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 11, 2009 05:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Neither socialism nor monarchism produces a classless society - but at least monarchism is intellectually honest enough to admit it. Socialism attempts to have everything decided by the collective will of the workers, but when this becomes impossible, out come the central planners, who know what's best for everyone - and thus "deserve" a large cut of the product of everyone's labor. This results in class differences codified in the law. Just like an aristocracy.
That's not the whole part of socialism though.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
MrCash
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2009 02:29 AM |
|
|
I personally prefer not to lean towards any extreme of the political spectrum. Extreme socialism prevents the citizenry from gathering any substantial amount of wealth regardless of their work or studies. You are essentially making everybody the same which kinda kills off the motivation of the people. Why become a doctor when you get paid the same being a janitor or cashier?
Extreme capitalism is just as bad. It gives WAY too much power to wealthy business owners while the vast majority of the people are under their mercy. Even today, there is no valid reason for the extreme wealth of people like Bill Gates and Oprah.
Thats why Im a moderate. I prefer to incorporate the best elements of diffrent systems rather than just diving into an extreme. Share wealth but not to the point where the rich become poor. Just to the point where people like Gates or Trump dont own trillions of dollars collecting dust in dozens of banks. Millions, ok. But some ppl ahve more than even the most lavish lifestyle will need.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 02:44 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker:
There is no such thing as a "money aristocracy" - if it were an aristocracy, it would be impossible to enter or leave it.
DeadMan:
Socialism strives towards equality in its rhetoric, but not in its results.
TheDeath:
That's not what the socialists say the point of socialism is, but that is the inevitable result.
MrCash:
Quote:
Even today, there is no valid reason for the extreme wealth of people like Bill Gates and Oprah.
Because they're productive?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 03:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JollyJoker:
There is no such thing as a "money aristocracy" - if it were an aristocracy, it would be impossible to enter or leave it.
You mean, it was impossible to enter or leave aristocracy? Err... Umm... I really wonder what you kids learn in school nowadays or what kind of stuff they give you to read...
Wait, it's Paris, right? You are still confused about all the aristocratic leftovers there.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 03:20 PM |
|
|
Well, you can only get into the blood aristocracy by marrying into it, and even that is complicated - or you can get a title of nobility, but you have to serve the King to do it. Whereas under capitalism you just have to fulfill demand.
Plus capitalism has equality under the law.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 03:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Plus capitalism has equality under the law.
And yet the law has so many loopholes it's easy to avoid equality.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 03:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, you can only get into the blood aristocracy by marrying into it, and even that is complicated - or you can get a title of nobility, but you have to serve the King to do it. Whereas under capitalism you just have to fulfill demand.
Plus capitalism has equality under the law.
What's the matter, man, are you still in Paris, with your mind? You make no sense!
|
|
pig_
Tavern Dweller
Unstoppable,Unbanned
|
posted March 20, 2009 04:19 PM |
|
|
Boring 
____________
|
|
|
|
