Left-Wing, Right-wing, or Central?

[Xenoshi]

I'm a moderate. I'm conservative in some issues, and liberal in others. I support the decriminalization of prostitution and drugs, the separation of religion from state, and universal health care...But, I also support a strong military and I was, at the time, in support of America's invasion of Iraq.

Go far enough left, and you end up with communism. A system that does NOT reward individual acheivement/industry. You end up with a society of mediocre drones, doing what they do, just to pass the time....

 

 

The problem is that you see the same thing happen in Capitalist societies as well -- take for instance, Japan or the United States. In Japan you have workers who mill away at their day-to-day job for countless hours a week, mindlessly working like drones until sometimes they literally drop over dead. Likewise, in the United States you have individuals who can never overcome the wage gap and continue to list day after day at the same job barely making enough money to survive. In essence, you have a society of mediocre drones. You can argue that in capitalism they have the potential to expand, but it is a potential which is exponentially difficult to realize.

 

Communism isn't exactly a better solution, but both systems create societies of mediocre drones.

[HeyYou]

40 years ago...... It actually WAS possible to start from poverty, and work your way into the middle class, and it really didn't take all that much effort...... but then, with 'globalization'...... all too many of our jobs moved to third world countries, where wages were a tiny fraction of what workers here had gotten used to. That was all well and good for the upper management on up in the typical corporation..... costs were down, profits went up, and the lies they told americans about how 'good' this would be for them were either forgotten, or ignored by the mainstream media. Makes me curious when 'corporate profits going up' became equivalent to 'the economy is improving'. For some it was improving, a tiny minority... for the rest, its still in the dolldrums. And getting worse. Today, 'upward mobility' is severely limited, simply because the jobs that people used to 'move up' into, aren't here anymore. (and this is why you see more adults working at McDonalds these days, than teenagers, whom the jobs were originally targeted at.)

 

I wonder when corporate america is going to realize they are disenfrancising their target market...... (or maybe I should wonder IF they are going to figure that out...... how far will profits have to fall?)

 

In any event, "globalization" is the great equalizer. It has enabled china to dramatically boost its economy, given them the money to radically expand military spending.... (that was kind of us.....) and brought far too many americans down to a third-world lifestyle.

 

We are ending up with a plutocracy...... Society is becoming more and more stratified, with the tiny minority of haves, and the vast majority of have-nots......

[Daedthr]

 

Communism isn't exactly a better solution, but both systems create societies of mediocre drones.

 

This is a very good point, in reality societies that are capitalist to the extent of the USA or Japan are just as likely to make slaves of people than Communism is. The idea of Capitalism is essentially that your money works for you, but for the masses in the USA, that's simply not the case, people are made wage slaves (inadvertently or intentionally) by those whose money truly does work for them, that is, the elite. Capitalism for the masses is a delusion.

 

I have a couple of examples in regard to this theory.

 

1.

 

The first is to do with government bonds, that the French with the help of Belgium have just realised. Now, when governments such as the French need money, the can borrow from the elite of society, and by elite I don't just mean upper-class or millionaires, I'm talking about the billionaires, the absolute top of the wealth ladder, figures such as the old Bill Gates in terms of wealth. There are not actually very many of them, perhaps 200, but a fair few are invisible because of what I will describe below.

 

When governments borrow money off such figures, they provide them with government bonds, which essentially are the promise to repay the debt over a certain period of time in equal payments, which will culminate in the ultimate repayment of the borrowed sum with some interest on top. Thing is, these bonds can take years for governments to pay back because the quantities of money involved are so huge, which means that governments will still be paying back 30 year bonds now.

 

So now you come to the problem of what happens when past governments have used lots of bonds in the past, and your government now suddenly finds that vast sums of money are vanishing into thin air, because government bonds are being exchanged for money to be transferred into accounts. These vast sums of money that are disappearing could be used to improve society, but instead they are vanishing because of debts paid for by previous governments in bonds.

 

So what the French have recently started to do is recall and cancel all pre-existing government bonds, and offer people new ones. So I hear you ask, what's the problem here, government's are paying debts off all the time, why bother recalling them?

 

Well, the answer to that is that in recalling the bonds as the French have started doing, you take something from those who have the bonds - their anonymity. You see, government bonds are not taxed, which is a problem because the interest governments have to pay back on sums of money such as that they were lent is enormous. Now however, they know who is getting the money, which allows them to tax the exchange of bonds. It took a very long time for the French (alongside Belgium) to work this out, huge amounts of money were disappearing to unknown source, which was something the government found rather limiting and very concerning, as it could be going anywhere. So now that the government knows this, there are going to be problems, as the public are going to start wondering why all this money is going to the absolute global elites, and why it has been for decades anonymously, and in a country with a history like France, things are likely to happen rather dramatically.

 

So what does this example demonstrate? It demonstrates the effect the world elite can have on governments, multiple governments and even entire countries. It demonstrates that Capitalism works for the benefit of a few, at the cost of millions.

 

2. So here's the second example, which demonstrates that Capitalism such as this isn't ever likely to be beaten, short of revolution.

 

So out of all the countries in the world that have become victim to the problems of capitalism, I firmly believe that the worst is the USA. Other countries have it bad, with the work ethic of Japan leading some people to become suicidal, and the true capitalism of China leading to poor living conditions for the majority, but none are as enslaved to it as the USA is.

 

So here's a few statistics:

 

-91% of the time, the candidate with the most money wins the election in the USA.

 

-66% of political donations come from 0.2% of the population.

 

-In the last 5 years, 200 big companies in the USA have spent $5.8bn on lobbying and contribution campaigns, and the same companies have received a total of $4.4 trillion back in tax payer support.

 

 

What does this show? That in America political power is completely dependent on money. The first statistic shows that money wins election campaigns, the second shows that this money comes from a tiny slice of America, and the third shows this tiny slice making enormous profits from their investment. All this, while the standards of living in the USA are declining for millions.

 

So why does it matter, what does it matter if these companies give to the politicians? Well how do you think the politicians pay them back? They pay them back by passing and support the legislation that will benefit said companies. Politicians are selling their political power off to companies who can use it to get themselves more money, and the more political power, it's a vicious circle.

 

Not only is it a vicious circle, but it's getting worse, because the nature of the first statistic makes it exponential:

 

1. A candidate gets more financial support than another and subsequently wins the election, because they had more to spend campaigning.

2. The opposing party try harder next election to raise money, get more than before, and win that election.

3. Now the first party must raise more money than the last candidate did, and so on and so forth.

 

 

This means that politicians are going to become increasingly dependent on the excessively rich few, giving them more power. The fact that the rich have this degree of political power also means that nothing is likely to change, the masses will continue to suffer as the few thrive.

 

Some groups are trying to propose solutions, as seen on the website that this information is from: https://represent.us/

 

Simply put, the US needs to make it illegal for those who donate to political campaigns to lobby for legislation.

 

 

At the heart of this lies the argument against capitalism, which is that while capitalism can create a stable society, it is one that becomes ever more unfair, constrictive of freedom, and oppressive, as shown by the heading of the politics of the US.

 

Capitalism is clever, it uses human desire for freedom and natural individualistic tendencies to create a society that promises to fulfill these desires, but in reality cripples both for the masses and gives surplus to the few. It is for this reason that I would prefer to live in a Communist society than a society that is as Capitalist as what the US is heading towards, because at least in a Communist society, there is fairness.

 

It might take longer, but Capitalism can make slaves of a nation just as easily as Communism can.

[HeyYou]

I completely agree with your second point. Money in politics is a MAJOR problem here in the states. Trouble is, (and you are correct there too....) the only way that is going to change is via revolution. The people are going to have to rise up, and take back their government from the wealthy. Do I ever see that happening? Nope. At least, not until things get MUCH worse than they are already.

 

Currently, the ONLY folks that can actually change things for the better, are the very same folks that profit the most from NOT changing anything. Several times, bills have been introduced that would overturn citizens united, (via campaign finance reform legislation) and various other 'loopholes' that make it possible to purchase your very own personal politiician. Those bills never even make it out of committee.

 

When the Supreme Court decided that "money=Free speech", they spelled the death knell for american society.

[Beriallord]

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.

Edited May 18, 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.

 

However even if they were half as appreciated or effective as the Conservatives, I still wouldn't be too fond of them. I consider myself reasonably left-of-centre, so really old Labour would be my natural inclination. Now with the centralisation of parties though, elections are based more on practicalities than principles here.

[HeyYou]

If the UK is anything like the US in this respect, how is borrowing money from one country, simply to give it away to another country, with zero chance of it ever being paid back.... make any sense whatsoever? Especially when a fair bit of that foreign aid goes to countries that actually hate us? How is sabotaging our own national budget helping US??? I will grant, that its pretty much a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things.... (right about 50 billion per year for the US.) But, if we are going to borrow money, I am thinkin' that 50 billion per year could go a long way towards upgrading our failing infrastructure.......

[dpgillam]

Either way, we're able to conclude that Right-Wing extremism is not suitable for a stable society, because it can lead to mass "euthanasia" as it did in the case of the Nazi's, and the killing of large percentages of the populace would eventually lead to a dysfunctional society (as well as being extremely immoral ofc). If we have reached this point from the right-wing principle of the State existing to create an environment in which each individual can provide for themselves by merit of their own contributions and doings, then perhaps the right-wing is not the way to go at all, as the principles behind it lead down a "slippery slope" to an extremist, dysfunctional society.

This shows a misunderstanding of politics perpetuated by our curent educational systems internationally. The Nazis were socialists, and extremely left in nature. Indeed, if one actually reads Marx, his stated method of "social evolution" is that "all" states must be brought to socialism ((that is, you're still allowed to own property, but the government dictates how you are allowed to use it) until they can be led to communism, where the community owns everything and loans to use as needed.

 

It should be noted that there are two discussion goin on: one on how people and property should be governed, and one on how the internal national markets should operate. Many wrongly mash the two together in goverment classes. Part of the confusion is that communism and socialism are both equal part governmental philosophy and market philosophy, while capitalism is purely a market philosophy, that stands regardless of government structure.

 

A prime example is China, where it operates internationally as a capitalist market, yet internally as a communist government and market. Monarchies can be capitalist (and most have been in the last two centuries) as are several different types of dictatorships, both benevolent and otherwise. On the oposing side though, few governments other than communism or socialism can have a socialistic or communistic market and remain stable for long. The point of those economic systems is to collapse a government into that style of government.

 

Pure Capitalism, in its shortest form says you get what you earn. Its entirely voluntary when and how you will be separated from your earnings. (short of crime) How has it worked? Well, its been the main market system of the planet for most all of history. There's a whole lot of good that people tend to throw out with the bad.

 

Socialism isnt new. The government telling you what to do with your property (land or other property) is the basis of every tax and incentive ever made. Even communism is far older than the term itself, with exampls going back into biblical times.

 

We see the repeated same flaws of all three MARKET systems spanning through history: In Pure Capitalism, human nature wins out, and those that have lost (or never had) the ability to care for themselves are often left to suffer. Its not to say that greed is stronger than charity, but there is an actual psychological term (the name currently eludes me) where we watch repeatedly, as everyone waits for someone else to "do the right thing", as no one does, until its too late to do anything. Meanwhile, both socialism and communism, with their lack of reward for individual effort, stifle that effort; everything sinks to the lowest common denominator, which is far lower than most people imagine.

 

One of the most brutally honest versions Ive ever heard to explain it is that Capitalism offers everyone an equal chance to fail, while the other two offer everyone an equal share of misery. Pick your poison.

 

What I have found is the greatest indicator of which side you really, deeply hold to can be found rather easily:

Its a proven and readily acknowledged fact that there are frauds abusing the welfare system of almost every civilized country.

 

The Right Wing person wants to make "means tests" (proof of need) to prevent this, and look for any other option than simply offering money; a common suggestion is to have undesirable government labor like lawn care and street cleaning positions filled by those "on the dole". And they earn their checks by this labor. (disabled, under/over-aged exempted) Basically "one fraud is one too many."

 

The Left Wing person feels that there should be no "hurdle"; that people in this situation "got it bad enough", and shouldnt have to fight the system for help. The argument is that we all have an obligation to help, and anyone that receives aid will eventually pay it back, and more so. (and the stats show the majority do) Basically "A few bad apples dont ruin the bushel."

 

Its interesting to note that we see the same result repeated across Western Society:

Youngsters and the poor support socialism and communism.

By the late 20s or if someone reaches the Middle Class, they tend to prefer Capitalism.

That is, when they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, they're happy to see people stripped of earned wealth. Once they've actually earned a bit of wealth themselves, they arent as willing to take from others, because they understand

A) how hard it was to earn

B) Theirs can be taken too

 

We also see along the exact same divides support going from socialism or communism to one of the various forms of democracy.

Essentially, the kids learn

A) Those most desirous of power should be least trusted with it

B) Power corrupts. Political power corrupts absolutely and immediately

C) The government strong enough to give you everything is strong enough to take it all away

 

This is not to be seen as a Right/Left divide as is found in democratic governments, but rather a contrast of those democratic governments against other forms.

[JimboUK]

 

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.

 

However even if they were half as appreciated or effective as the Conservatives, I still wouldn't be too fond of them. I consider myself reasonably left-of-centre, so really old Labour would be my natural inclination. Now with the centralisation of parties though, elections are based more on practicalities than principles here.

 

 

I'm sorry but you're not getting away with this. Every party has it's nutters, the difference is UKIP does something about them, it's also worth mentioning that there's a common theme with problematic members, they tend to be ex members of the Conservative Party yet no one said a word about their behaviour until they joined UKIP. UKIP are not anti immigration, it's anti uncontrolled immigration, it's a position widely supported, especially among the working class who have been hit hardest by it. UKIP are the only party that bans anyone with links to extreme right from joining, Labour welcome them with open arms.

 

UKIP is closer to Old Labour than the current Labour Party is, that's why it has so much support in traditional Labour areas, under a fair electoral system it would have 60+ seats. Old Labour was against membership of the EU (then EEC), it wouldn't have allowed uncontrolled immigration, it was big on law and order, all things that impact the lives of ordinary people. If you were Old Labour you'd see exactly where UKIP are coming from. Under Blair/Brown Labour attacked the working class, punishment no doubt for the working classes betrayal of Labour in '79, it used mass immigration to push many into poverty where it could use the tax and welfare systems to trap them, it was an attempt to create a client class reliant on Labour largesse. Labour has become the enemy of the working class, that's why as soon as UKIP turned its sights on Labour they were able to inflict so much damage in such a short time. There's a reason why UKIP are Labours problem and not the Tories, something the press doesn't seem to have noticed.

 

If you want to see real hate and intolerance in the UK you don't have to look further than the new left, the middle class social justice warriors Labour now represent, that's where the violence during the campaign came from, it's where most of the abuse and nastiness on Twitter and Facebook came from, it's the people who demand tolerance from others while showing none themselves as they attack everyone with a different opinion to their own.

[Daedthr]

 

Either way, we're able to conclude that Right-Wing extremism is not suitable for a stable society, because it can lead to mass "euthanasia" as it did in the case of the Nazi's, and the killing of large percentages of the populace would eventually lead to a dysfunctional society (as well as being extremely immoral ofc). If we have reached this point from the right-wing principle of the State existing to create an environment in which each individual can provide for themselves by merit of their own contributions and doings, then perhaps the right-wing is not the way to go at all, as the principles behind it lead down a "slippery slope" to an extremist, dysfunctional society.

This shows a misunderstanding of politics perpetuated by our curent educational systems internationally. The Nazis were socialists, and extremely left in nature. Indeed, if one actually reads Marx, his stated method of "social evolution" is that "all" states must be brought to socialism ((that is, you're still allowed to own property, but the government dictates how you are allowed to use it) until they can be led to communism, where the community owns everything and loans to use as needed.

 

The Nazi's were extremely left in nature? Well they were called the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) and I'll give you that you could consider them socialist, but that's about as far as it goes. You are mistaking the symptom for the ailment, arguing that the Nazi's were socialist based on their dictating of use of property. But government control of property or even totalitarianism is in no way exclusive to the left wing, socialism is a method not a principle, and the political left and right describe principles not methods.

 

Even if the Nazi's were socialist, this does not mean they were left-wing, the absolutely fundamental idea behind the left-wing is equality, whether or not a government controls property is irrelevant of their motive for doing so, which would dictate where they stand on the political spectrum. It is not in fact the education system that is perpetuating a false idea, it is those that believe that the left and right-wrings are defined by their methods of governing rather than the principles behind the methods. The right-wing is ultimately concerned with freedom, the left is ultimately concerned with equality. A leftist government might dictate property use in order to assure equality in society, a right-wing government might dictate property use to ensure that a house can be used for anything, but this is equally dictating as the government would simply be dictating that a house can used for anything rather than something.

 

The Nazi's were certainly not left-wing, they did not attempt to remove the class system from their country and promoted a free market, which extremely leftist governments do not do as a free market inevitably leads to some doing well and others doing poorly, which creates inequality. None of their policies indicate an extremist left-nature, because as I've already established Socialism as you have defined it does not necessarily come from a desire for equality. It suits moderate left governments the best, but is in no way exclusive to them. If you look at their 25 Point Plan - http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP_25_points_manifesto - then you'll see that in reality they were not left wing at all, let alone extremely so. Look at point 13, which describes them wanting to "very big" corporations to be owned by the government. But an "extremely left" government wouldn't just want very big corporations, it would want all corporations because this is the easiest way to ensure equality. They put in a lot of nonsense like point 14 which they never attempted to implement, point 16 which literally PROMOTES having a middle-class, which is something no extremely left government would want as it inhibits equality. Another very important thing to note is point 17, which dictates they want a law to take over land if they need too, not out of equality, which is what extremist left governments would do. It is also worth noting that they only nationalised land in 1945 when they were seriously in trouble in the war, up until then landowners could do whatever they liked with their property, which further shows the Nazi's were not left-wing or even socialist by your own definition, as they only really started dictating property usage for the war rather than for equality.

 

I'd also contest that Socialism is merely government dictating property, I think that modern socialism as opposed to Marx's socialism is more about society being run with a focus on community. Look at Clement Attlee's post-war government of Britain. They would certainly have called themselves socialist, but they did not dictate what property could be used for, they simply put a focus on a communal society with universal benefits and the nationalisation of certain companies.

 

 

It should be noted that there are two discussion goin on: one on how people and property should be governed, and one on how the internal national markets should operate. Many wrongly mash the two together in goverment classes. Part of the confusion is that communism and socialism are both equal part governmental philosophy and market philosophy, while capitalism is purely a market philosophy, that stands regardless of government structure.

 

A prime example is China, where it operates internationally as a capitalist market, yet internally as a communist government and market. Monarchies can be capitalist (and most have been in the last two centuries) as are several different types of dictatorships, both benevolent and otherwise. On the oposing side though, few governments other than communism or socialism can have a socialistic or communistic market and remain stable for long. The point of those economic systems is to collapse a government into that style of government.

 

Communism, Socialism and Capitalism are all really independent of government philosophy, they are just methods of state governance, with Communism and Socialism being community centric, and Capitalism describing a free market, though I think you're right in what you say about Communism and Socialism being equal parts government structure and market structure, whereas capitalism is really just market structure.

 

Each method has become associated with a different place on the political spectrum because they best suit these places. Communism best suits the extreme left where equality is paramount, Socialism best suits the moderate left which might argue that society should be as equal as possibly while infringing freedom as little as possible, and Capitalism best suits the more right-wing governments where freedom is paramount.

 

The point about China is very good for demonstrating the difference between Communism/Socialism and Capitalism, as it shows the latter to be purely market orientated rather than concerned with the structure of governance as a whole.

 

 

 

 

Pure Capitalism, in its shortest form says you get what you earn. Its entirely voluntary when and how you will be separated from your earnings. (short of crime) How has it worked? Well, its been the main market system of the planet for most all of history. There's a whole lot of good that people tend to throw out with the bad.

 

Socialism isnt new. The government telling you what to do with your property (land or other property) is the basis of every tax and incentive ever made. Even communism is far older than the term itself, with exampls going back into biblical times.

 

We see the repeated same flaws of all three MARKET systems spanning through history: In Pure Capitalism, human nature wins out, and those that have lost (or never had) the ability to care for themselves are often left to suffer. Its not to say that greed is stronger than charity, but there is an actual psychological term (the name currently eludes me) where we watch repeatedly, as everyone waits for someone else to "do the right thing", as no one does, until its too late to do anything. Meanwhile, both socialism and communism, with their lack of reward for individual effort, stifle that effort; everything sinks to the lowest common denominator, which is far lower than most people imagine.

 

One of the most brutally honest versions Ive ever heard to explain it is that Capitalism offers everyone an equal chance to fail, while the other two offer everyone an equal share of misery. Pick your poison.

 

What I have found is the greatest indicator of which side you really, deeply hold to can be found rather easily:

Its a proven and readily acknowledged fact that there are frauds abusing the welfare system of almost every civilized country.

 

The Right Wing person wants to make "means tests" (proof of need) to prevent this, and look for any other option than simply offering money; a common suggestion is to have undesirable government labor like lawn care and street cleaning positions filled by those "on the dole". And they earn their checks by this labor. (disabled, under/over-aged exempted) Basically "one fraud is one too many."

 

The Left Wing person feels that there should be no "hurdle"; that people in this situation "got it bad enough", and shouldnt have to fight the system for help. The argument is that we all have an obligation to help, and anyone that receives aid will eventually pay it back, and more so. (and the stats show the majority do) Basically "A few bad apples dont ruin the bushel."

 

Its interesting to note that we see the same result repeated across Western Society:

Youngsters and the poor support socialism and communism.

By the late 20s or if someone reaches the Middle Class, they tend to prefer Capitalism.

That is, when they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, they're happy to see people stripped of earned wealth. Once they've actually earned a bit of wealth themselves, they arent as willing to take from others, because they understand

A) how hard it was to earn

B) Theirs can be taken too

 

We also see along the exact same divides support going from socialism or communism to one of the various forms of democracy.

Essentially, the kids learn

A) Those most desirous of power should be least trusted with it

B) Power corrupts. Political power corrupts absolutely and immediately

C) The government strong enough to give you everything is strong enough to take it all away

 

This is not to be seen as a Right/Left divide as is found in democratic governments, but rather a contrast of those democratic governments against other forms.

 

I agree with most all of this, both the left and right wing have faults because they tend to want to employ Communism/Socialism and Capitalism respectively, and all of these systems have faults. Communism goes against human nature and so is volatile and undesirable and Capitalism promotes human nature which is to tread on others on your way to the top. What I disagree with is when people say Communism makes you slaves and Capitalism doesn't. Capitalism can make the vast majority slaves just as much as Communism can with the US as an example. For those nearer the top Capitalism gets exponentially better, for those near the bottom it get's exponentially worse.

 

I like what the rhetoric about poison, the right-wing giving us the freedom to exploit others and the left-wing giving us equality in our misery.

 

Personally I'm most inclined to have a democratic, very moderate left, socialist, mixed economy country, similar to the of Britain 1945-51 but possibly with less nationalised industry. Out of the two poisons I think I'd still choose the left one, but it's really a matter of moral preference.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

However even if they were half as appreciated or effective as the Conservatives, I still wouldn't be too fond of them. I consider myself reasonably left-of-centre, so really old Labour would be my natural inclination. Now with the centralisation of parties though, elections are based more on practicalities than principles here.

 

 

I'm sorry but you're not getting away with this. Every party has it's nutters, the difference is UKIP does something about them, it's also worth mentioning that there's a common theme with problematic members, they tend to be ex members of the Conservative Party yet no one said a word about their behaviour until they joined UKIP. UKIP are not anti immigration, it's anti uncontrolled immigration, it's a position widely supported, especially among the working class who have been hit hardest by it. UKIP are the only party that bans anyone with links to extreme right from joining, Labour welcome them with open arms.

 

UKIP is closer to Old Labour than the current Labour Party is, that's why it has so much support in traditional Labour areas, under a fair electoral system it would have 60+ seats. Old Labour was against membership of the EU (then EEC), it wouldn't have allowed uncontrolled immigration, it was big on law and order, all things that impact the lives of ordinary people. If you were Old Labour you'd see exactly where UKIP are coming from. Under Blair/Brown Labour attacked the working class, punishment no doubt for the working classes betrayal of Labour in '79, it used mass immigration to push many into poverty where it could use the tax and welfare systems to trap them, it was an attempt to create a client class reliant on Labour largesse. Labour has become the enemy of the working class, that's why as soon as UKIP turned its sights on Labour they were able to inflict so much damage in such a short time. There's a reason why UKIP are Labours problem and not the Tories, something the press doesn't seem to have noticed.

 

If you want to see real hate and intolerance in the UK you don't have to look further than the new left, the middle class social justice warriors Labour now represent, that's where the violence during the campaign came from, it's where most of the abuse and nastiness on Twitter and Facebook came from, it's the people who demand tolerance from others while showing none themselves as they attack everyone with a different opinion to their own.

 

 

Well first off I apologise, my statement about the 'nutters' was very subjective, and I accept that every party has them, although UKIP's seem to me to be a lot more vocal: http://www.livemaguk.com/10-outrageous-ukip-blunders/

 

Though this may be a misrepresentation of the media.

 

As for immigration, I never said they were "anti-immigration" but I said that they seem to have an overbearing focus on it. To me this seems true, Farage seems to spend most of his time talking about policies related to foreign countries (leaving the EU, putting in immigration controls, getting rid of foreign aid) than he does about domestic policies like education or the economy. I accept that the need for a control on immigration is a pressing one, and am in favour of Cameron's attempt to negotiate better terms with the EU, but I still think UKIP gives these issues too much of it's time compared to what the other mainstream parties give it.

 

As for Labour welcoming extreme right MPs, who? Labour is a left-of-centre party, Miliband was more left-wing than Blair was, he even got his position from the Unions!

 

You then say UKIP is closer to old Labour than the current Labour party is, and to an extent I accept this, but in terms of principles I do not. Both UKIP and Old Labour had the same concrete voter base, the working class, however in terms of political views they are very different. UKIP is able to sponge of the current working class because it is among this class that fears concerning immigration are most prevalent, as it is this class who claim to suffer most from the influx of unskilled workers from foreign countries. However UKIP are not actually working class orientated, Labour's policies are still based far more around the working class, but some of the working class still go to UKIP because it is UKIP who are strongest on immigration, and it is immigration that seems to those people the most pressing political issue.

 

You say our voting system is unfair, which is a cry heard from many every election when their party gets votes which fail to translate to seats, it really isn't new. First past the post has kept Britain democratic and without serious extremism for centuries, since Cromwell in fact. What would your alternative be, proportional representation? Take a look at what that got the Weimar Republic first, the answer is constant coalition (weak) governments, more power to extremist parties, and ultimately collapse and the rise of Hitler. Proportional representation is very democratic yes, but it also gives extremist parties more seats, and make coalition politics a certainty, with the latter still being a problem even if it was a two ballot proportional representation system. First past the post has got Britain through French revolutions and the Rise of Fascism relatively unscathed, there is no good reason to remove it now for the sake of a 'fairer' system. The system is fair, everyone has to play by the same rules, if UKIP appealed to people as much as the Conservatives did in the areas they did, they would have got a majority, but they didn't.

 

When it comes to the EEC, you don't seem to have any idea what you are saying:

 

1. The EEC was created in 1958 at which point the Conservatives were in power under Harold Macmillan. When Labour next got power under Harold Wilson, we APPLIED TO JOIN the EEC! However we were denied because of De Gaulle.

2. You seem to be talking about the ECSC which Attlee's government was against joining, but you cannot possibly compare this to UKIP not wanting to be in the EU now as the ECSC back then and the EU now are fundamentally different. The ECSC that Labour could have joined was the European Coal and Steal Community, and was almost exclusively concerned with trade and welfare in those industries. It had no legislative power as the EU has to day, no concern with immigration and no policy on law and order. Labour had literally just nationalised coal and steel, so of course they weren't going to hand them over the ECSC, but you can't liken them to modern UKIP for not taking part in the ECSC just because UKIP now want to leave the EU.

3. You say they were against uncontrolled immigration, but under Attlee and open-door policy was literally promoted! We advertised ourselves to ex-colonies like Jamaica, welcomed thousands of Polish and Ukrainian people in after the ward ended and did the same with thousands of Indian people after their independence in 1947.

 

You simply can't compare old Labour to UKIP for not joining the ECSC, and I don't know why you think Attlee's government were anti-uncontrolled immigration when in fact they wanted as many immigrants as possibly to come here to supplement the work force lost after WW2.

 

 

 

 

Under Blair/Brown Labour attacked the working class, punishment no doubt for the working classes betrayal of Labour in '79, it used mass immigration to push many into poverty where it could use the tax and welfare systems to trap them, it was an attempt to create a client class reliant on Labour largesse. Labour has become the enemy of the working class, that's why as soon as UKIP turned its sights on Labour they were able to inflict so much damage in such a short time. There's a reason why UKIP are Labours problem and not the Tories, something the press doesn't seem to have noticed.

 

 

I agree with your general message here, Blair certainly did damage the working class with his open-door policy, but to say that he did it intentionally is ridiculous. No politician is petty or stupid enough to ostracise their voting base for some foolish concept of revenge for an election that happened 20 years ago. It's also ludicrous to suggest that he did it to harm the working class to make them reliant on him, when as any British politician knows, you cannot lose your base of support for even a moment in politics because the system is so competitive that another party will jump on them as UKIP have now. Blair made a mistake yes, he did not erode his working class support deliberately.

 

Labour is traditionally a party concerned with working class interests, this is what old Labour was, this is not what UKIP is now. UKIP used the mistakes of New Labour to take their votes, one of which is immigration, this does not mean they are the party with the working classes interests at heart, they simply use certain policies to win votes from them. If you actually look at their most recent manifesto, most of their economic policies are concerned with the middle class, the class that you claim new Labour now represent, which old Labour certainly did not.

 

As for your comments to the new left, to some extent I agree, what Labour currently represents is an intolerant upper-lower/middle class that fail to appreciate the current feelings of those they are claiming to protect. This is why I'd consider myself Old Labour, real Labour ended with Blair.