Left-Wing, Right-wing, or Central?

[Beriallord]

HeyYou, they're a bunch of Marxists who think the western world owes everybody else for their success, and that they only achieved it at everybodies expense. That appears to be their justification for the immigration policies whether they admit it or not. And the ones who aren't Maxists are just Capitalists taking advantage of the situation of being able to use cheaper labor to produce products in another country, or to hire cheap immigration labor to make larger profits. So we're being screwed from both the right and the left. The Capitalists are no better. By default they're going to support policies that help their profits at the expense of everything else. Leftists scare me more because they come up with some really ignorant, asinine reasons for pushing destructive politices that seem illogical to sane minded people. With Capititalists, all you need to do to figure them out is follow the money. I'd rather stick with the devil I know, and that's the Capitalists. If anyone's heard the saying, its between the fools and the crooks, that's basically what they mean.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Beriallord

[Daedthr]

 

 

As far as British politics goes, I like the UKIP. I would vote for them if I lived there. I got no use for Tories or Labor to be honest.

 

UKIP are a very odd party really. Before Farage, they were frankly racist, and even now I'm not entirely comfortable with some of their principles, but then part of it will be to do with the fact that both Labour and the Conservatives have become so centralised since Blair that any real sense of Left or Right wing in a party seems overzealous.

 

Personally though, I'm not a big fan of UKIP, it's a party with a greater share of nutters ("Gays cause floods!" type nutters) in than either the Conservatives or Labour, and that says something to me about what sort of things the principles behind their policies are. They're no longer racist by any means (they used to be compared to BNP), but they still have an overbearing focus on immigration and frankly their "British jobs for British people" doesn't attract me in the slightest, considering Britains wealth has historically been based on the exploitation of foreign colonies and slave labour.

 

I've also been present at a debate/discussion with a UKIP council member, and he was disgustingly prejudiced.

 

They want to do things like cut foreign aid to the poorest countries in the world, which as Nick Clegg said, wouldn't help anyone.

 

All in all I think they have a long way to go before they get anywhere near the stage of either the Conservatives of Labour, not that I think they ever will. Currently they're a one-man party under Farage, and there's still a lot of public disapproval of them because of their history and their leanings against immigration.

 

I'm not opposed to either of those positions I underlined.

 

As far as the comment about Britain's wealth is concerned, its not fair to hold people today responsible for what happened over 100 years ago. And that's a really poor excuse to justify immigration policies like they're some sort of reparations for things done in the past. Immigration should be about "do you possess a skill that we need?". Opening the flood gates from the 3rd world is a nation destroying policy. The fallacy is the belief that most of them will adapt to British ways over time. So what's the plan if they refuse to adapt?

 

Also, holding the entire party accountable for the positions of a few nutters isn't exactly fair. Every side has them.

 

 

Firstly, I apologise for the comment about the 'nutters', it was subjective and unfair, though I believe I have done this already?

 

Your point about Britain's wealth is also fair, though one could still argue that while we as people are not responsible for the methods used to accrue our nations wealth, the nation we live in is, and it could be argued that we should attempt to give the countries that suffered under our empire some reparation. Indeed we demanded the same thing from Germany after WW1, when the majority of the people who lived their had not personally contributed to the war in any way. Also I hope when you said you weren't opposed you didn't mean you favoured slavery and exploitation? I interpreted it as you don't believe it's relevant.

 

However I will agree with you that immigration policy is a poor way to pay reparations, it is to indirect and uncontrolled.

 

Your point about vetting immigrants is also one I will agree with, we do need to vet who enters the country and use this to evaluate whether or not we allow entry. This is all well and good, but UKIP as a party have an overbearing focus on immigration control, in that it uses a disproportionate amount of their campaigning time, and is unequivocally their most debated policy. European history tends to show that 'one-issue' parties are not good for a country, because they come into government with a huge amount of pressure based around said issue, which encourages the neglecting of other equally important ones, and they also tend to find that when they get into government they have somewhat 'bought their own press', and that the issues they have to deal with aren't quite as easy to fix as they thought.

 

I'm not saying UKIP only talk about immigration, but it's an issue they give too much of their time too. Why? Because it is a vote-winner issue, unlike the economy which few invest time in to understand, that NHS (which is virtually untouchable as a whole now and the only issue that remains is extent of privatisation) or ethical issues, immigration is something everyone thinks they understand and which people are inclined to blame other things on. I won't deny the need for controlled immigration is a big issue here, but the real issue of this political generation is the EU, which encompasses a lot more than immigration, something which I feel UKIP is diluting in order to win votes.

 

As for expecting immigrants to adapt to Britain, that's not really a fallacy as cultural assimilation has been proven time and again in our history. After WW2 large numbers of Indian's and West Indian's came here, and they have adapted, it is no mere coincidence Britain's most popular dish is Chicken Tikka Masala (a dish which actually was born in Glasgow but was an English attempt at Indian cuisine). Even immigrants for the Middle East have integrated virtually seamlessly here, at least in the middle and upper classes, the only real issues remain in working class circles and regions, and education. If History is anything to go by (which it most certainly is), expecting immigrants to adapt is far from fallacy in the UK, though I understand this is different in many other countries such as the States.

 

Something I'll say concerning UK immigration, is that Farage and his party seem to think Britain is overcrowded, citing prison statistics and unemployment as evidence. This is nonsense, it is not the numbers that cause these problems, it is the lack of vetting. You cut down prison stats by vetting immigrants to see if they have a criminal record, you cut down unemployment by vetting immigrants to see if they have the skills the country needs (as you have rightly pointed out), you relieve pressure on the NHS by prioritising the passage of immigrants with a background in medicine, you do fix these issues by straight cutting the numbers and imposing a quota. The UK isn't overcrowded (again go watch Question Time, I believe the panel had Farage and Russell Brand on?), it hasn't got the right people in, this number of people is fine, it isn't the number that causes issues. I believe UKIP's claiming of an overcrowded Britain due to numbers is an example of them tunnel-visioning on a political issue and then misinterpreting it the cause of actual issues in order to win votes, rather than a political issue caused by current cultural unrest.

 

The foreign aid thing is a little sad, I believe cutting it shows a country with a completely individualistic culture, a culture that favours helping the relatively fortunate get what they want more than helping the desperately poor getting what they need. Yes, there is poverty in our country, there are run-down council estates and some people on the streets, and it is our duty to look after them before those in other countries. But taking away funding from countries with slums, with AIDS epidemics, with mass (and I mean mass) unemployment and poverty, seems to me a very, very morally cheap way to deal with domestic problems which could be solved by taking a little more money out of the pockets of the fortunate (foreign aid really doesn't account for that much in comparison to the amount that could be levied in further tax)? And I know some right-wingers are going to say "Oh but it's unfair for those people to be taxed more, they've worked hard!" or "Fix your own countries problems before you give any foreign aid!". But let me tell you what you're really saying, you're saying that it's fairer to take money from the poorest countries in the world that is desperately needed, because you don't want to tax the rich anymore, fair? No. I honestly fail to understand why people ever think it's fairer to make the poorest poorer to make the rich richer, just because they live in a difference place from you, it doesn't make them any less human or make basic human necessities any less needed. Want to fix your countries problems? Go ahead, get some money for it by cutting down on government bureaucracy or taxing the multi-millionaires, don't take away the school of some Somali children for your blighted conception of nation boundaries and only helping one's own. I'll add two last points on this, the first of which is that I'm not saying wealth must be distributed equally in the world or to give half our GDP to poorer nations, I'm saying taking away the meagre foreign aid we do give to get quick solutions to our problems is morally cheap. I also want to say that before anyone says something along the lines of "Most of the money never gets through anyway.", that whether or not the foreign aid gets to the people who need it most is irrelevant of the principle of giving to the less fortunate, what governments do with aid for their citizens is their moral responsibility, giving the aid or not is ours.

 

Finally going back to UKIP, I will give them this, they promote a relative amount of honesty in politics that is certainly a breath of fresh air, and is a great credit to Farage and the party. Their willingness to discuss issues such as immigration as they do is a good thing, I simply feel that they take it too far sometimes (just look at some of Farage on Question Time, he manages to bring most issues back to immigration somehow).

 

Something else to note is that they're something of a 'One-man party", Farage actually said he was going to resign if he didn't win his seat this election, and he did offer his resignation, but the party actually didn't accept it, they didn't let him resign. I say let him in the sense of they didn't condone it of course, so he stayed on. This is because Farage has completely turned them around, without him they would lose vast amount of support over the next term, because his charisma and honesty are a great factor in their growing support.

 

I also want to add this, I'm trying my hardest not to seem like I'm attacking UKIP's members, because I really am not. I don't believe that UKIP's members are in anyway racist, or responsible for some of the crack pot things the vocal party nutters say, or even for the policies concocted by the leaders, I'm simply arguing that UKIPs policies and stance do not make sense to me, and I fail to see how they would be beneficial. My first post about UKIP was very poorly worded and some it I regret posting, because it's unfair, it was too heavily based on my own experience of the party than an objective view (I was present at a debate with a UKIP councilman and some of the things he said were frankly disgusting), so for this I must you to forgive me.

[HeyYou]

It is difficult to talk about politics/politicians, WITHOUT implying some of their members may be somewhat less than what most would consider "Intelligent"..... Consider some of the things government has done...... only to discover later, that maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all..... and then, they DON'T fix it........ US government seems to be really good at it, after all, they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again, regardless of which party is in power.... From that, I have concluded that politicians, as a rule, are VERY charismatic morons. :)

[UncleRoe]

I haven't seen one politician i trust entirely. all of them have an agenda beyond what they preach. they're liars and the promises they swear are only sworn to keep their vote ratio high. If you are going to follow a politic. follow your own. These days saying your following someone elses politics is like saying you are choosing to be an idiot. at least if you follow your own politics,the guy you are putting your trust into beleives in you too.

[PippoFranchino]

I've just seen this intriguing conversation about politics and then, happy to see there are people interested about politics.

There are very few people who recognize what is happening around their town or into their same town and those who think they know something usually start to speak about informations they hear from another old man who was speaking with others old men, and maybe that old man read the first two words on a journal and he think he have understood a news.

Unfortunatly i've noticed speaking with many people that most of them are not interested into what will happen to them, but when this mean consequences and when consequences arrive they often start to cry pointing the finger against politics.

 

After this i've to quote what Daedthr said about British Empire and UKIP. The British have acted not 100 years ago but nearly 60 years ago like the world was their, they have had colonies everywhere around the world and i've read about cases in wich the BRitish Empire made crimes against humanity and those stuffs happened after 1940' too. If you want i will tell the cases.

 

After this we are not here to talk about British Empire crimes and i want to point out i like many parts of social policies actually in Britain.

 

Today Europe and North America live healty condition only because the most of the world population have not enough to drink or to eat and a large part of the world population work the double we do with the half of our salary without any rights to protect them or althought with far less rights we have. More the time pass more the corporations brings their affairs to the less industrialized countries exploiting the less payed manpower and making people be without job in the West.

Just today i've gone to the supermarket to buy something and i've seen that there were no more 3 casheir inside the supermarket but only one. The other two have been replaced by two machines who make their job.

 

It's quiet obvious i would vote the left wing, but we have to say too that is not possible to make a good Communist state without many states inside. SO i think that if tomorrow French choose to become a COmmunist state that would fail actually in few weeks. As we have said we are into the globalization era and communism as we have knew it won't work.

 

We need a new way to think the communism, a democratical way, with direct elections from the high to the less important office a politician and also a bureaucrats can take. Yes bureaucrats, because bureaucrats are another important part of the state and if all is on the state hands then the bureaucrats have to be elected as the politician but they will need technical skills to be elected. And i say that is not possible to make communism in a country only but it must be an entire continent to make it, we have to learn to live togheter , in federatives republics without think to constantly get the better to the neighbour but united try to get the best we can all togheter. A country alone can't make it , it have not enough resources and enough power. The more little you are and less will be the power, that is why the separatists movements are out of history to me. Federations and Confederation are the way to handle the interior problems but separate from mainland will only make them worst.

 

I just say this but i know this won't never happen, because people don't want to stick togheter, the major desire of the people today is to make money and crush everything between them and the success without think what there is all around and what is going on in the world or how we arrived at this point.

Maybe the last hope is the Nordic model of the Social Democrats, but is hard to say if you can bring it into the world.

 

Sorry for the bad English.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Pippo Franchino

[HeyYou]

Problem is, if humans are involved, communism simply doesn't work. Those at the top want to stay at the top, as they have all the priveledges and perks they could ever want. And all they have to do to keep them, is give the appearance of being concerned about the 'working class'. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't see that ever changing.

 

I don't see continents being united either..... too many different cultures, with different views, for everyone to agree (or even a majority of them...) on a single form of government. It really isn't in human nature to cooperate with those you disagree with, even if it is for the common good.

[Nozylation]

I would probably say center-right even though some of my beliefs shift towards left.

[theotherguy7]

I see that many here aren't really aware of what socialism/communism is. It's all about control of the means of production and society by the working class, instead of the bourgeoisie (the people who own business, control labour, profit off surplus value and decide who has a job and can work). It's not about a big government and its bureaucrats having total control over society and putting big taxes on everyone. Communism is actually supposed to be where the state, along with money and class, become abolished (which is different from Anarcho-Communism in the way labour is organized), and Socialism is where 3 of those may still exist, but society is run for the benefit of the working class (whether or not it is even by the working class varies). The reason they've become associated with a big government controlling everything is because actually attaining either of them is difficult, and there are various different schools of thought within Marxism believing in a different method, one of which is Marxism-Leninism, which is where the vanguard party (which forms the big government) takes over to act as a safe-guard against counter-revolution and capitalism during the transition to communism, and where there is only democracy within the party (Democratic Centralism), if any at all. This approach began with Lenin, after the October Revolution in Russia, and at the time, most of the measures he took were out of necessity, it's when Stalin came along that the revolution lost its direction. Proper socialism/communism can't work in a single country or region because of the global market, and in the countries where revolutions have happened, conditions were already pretty bad, with limited resources, so they couldn't bring much success and easily became corrupted. Most early advocates of communism or socialism actually favored a democratic society, as well. So I suggest people who have something to say about these things actually read from their proponents before doing so.

Edited June 27, 2015 by theotherguy7

[wardenwells]

I see that many here aren't really aware of what socialism/communism is.

 

I know right? Welcome to the internet. Or 50's mentality America. Wherever you feel more comfortable.

 

Having said that, I lean left. Not Hillary Clinton left, but rather Bernie Sanders left.

Edited August 4, 2015 by wardenwells

[WursWaldo]

I see that many here aren't really aware of what socialism/communism is.

This is very true. I feel this is willful ignorance, not being taught the truth, or not experiencing life under Socialism, Communism or Marxism. I also feel sorry for some them because they do not understand what they are wishing for. I have nothing but contempt for others, because the do understand what they are wishing for.

In reality they don't want to live under a Socialist, Communist or Marxist regime. They will not be included in the new elite. They will be come victims and a disposable human resource. I know this from first person experience and my family fled Africa because of it.

 

Out of principal I do not argue with people who hold socialist ideals. They are unworthy of consideration because in their hearts they have no consideration for others.