Lefties opinions those of a reducing minority

[Maggie Greg]

This appears to be an interesting thread, mostly.

I am anti-Communist as some of you know, as that political system decimated my family, and caused my parents to escape their homeland in 1950 and were destined never to see their relatives including brothers ans sisters and parents again, nor be able to correspond with them. Imagine that happening to you when you are in your late 20s


It saddens me that the Left in the western capitalist world are slow to condemn Communism's atrocities. The usual reason is because they share a fundamental belief in human nature and the role of institutions in shaping human attitudes and behaviors. To this day, that same Left continues to defend the ideals of Communism. It seems that the only people who have learned anything from the failures of Socialism as tried in Communist countries are those that were the victims of such experimentation.

The Western World, especially leftist intellectuals, continue in their fantasy that Socialism can actually work while preserving human dignity, freedom, and democracy. One of the most popular rationalisations for why Communism has produced so many victims is that it somehow went astray from its "principles." Either that, or the leadership of such Socialism attempts were insufficiently enlightened.

For example, one such myth is that Lenin's revolution (Bolshevik) was a humane experiment that was later corrupted by Stalin. However, Lenin's own words betray this view of Lenin and his revolution:


"You must make an example of these people. (1) Hang (I mean hang publicly, so that people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and known bloodsuckers....Yours, Lenin." --Order to Cheka (predecessor of the KGB)

"Excellent idea! That's exactly how I see it. Unfortunately, it wouldn't do to call it that." --Replying to his Commisar of Justice who asked: "What is the point of a People's Commissariat for Justice? ... It would be more honest to have a People's Commissariat for Social Extermination."

I am not picking on anybody b/c they are entitled to their views, I am just stating my (albeit subjective) views.

Cheers.

 

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Porthos
ISimilarly, I don't think Jesus would've expected, or been very happy with a lot of the actions of his churches up until now. Yet when talking about the ideas of Christianity its still seen as referring to the original precepts.

Which churches did Jesus have built? Which disciples wore silk robes with gold sashes? Who said rings were to signify marriage?
etc, etc,

You think the Christian churches have anything to do with Jesus? No way.......they are Man's churches not Jesus's.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Frodo
You think the Christian churches have anything to do with Jesus? No way.......they are Man's churches not Jesus's.

I'm not sure, but this might just be the first thing you've said that I agree with.

*clang*

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Frodo
Which churches did Jesus have built? Which disciples wore silk robes with gold sashes? Who said rings were to signify marriage?
etc, etc,

How many Ukranians did Karl Marx kill? How many rich people did he murder?

Many things have been said and done in his name, however, claiming to be following his ideals. Same with Jesus.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Maggie Greg
It saddens me that the Left in the western capitalist world are slow to condemn Communism's atrocities. The usual reason is because they share a fundamental belief in human nature and the role of institutions in shaping human attitudes and behaviors. To this day, that same Left continues to defend the ideals of Communism. It seems that the only people who have learned anything from the failures of Socialism as tried in Communist countries are those that were the victims of such experimentation.

Maggie Greg, good post.

I think that most of the left in Australia actually believe in a leaning towards the socialist ideal, as opposed to an absolute. To point at the Australian right and compare their ideals to those of an African military dictatorship is pretty much equally as false.

Lenin was a revolutionary, there can be no doubt about this. And revolutionaries kill people. I am also put in mind of other `examples' of the modern day, where entire countries are bombed as an `example'. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a major political change that didn't result in deaths (except Australia becoming a constitutional monarchy)

However, the ideals of socialism (and one of its offshoots in communism) are still there....like many ideals, they may well be unachievable or even impossible, but they are still something to work towards.

Anyone that says that the USSR was a political angel is kidding themselves.....but similarly so with the bastion of capitalism, the US.

 

[Pessimistic]

I think the Left is quite obvious in that they support the rights and conditions of ordinary working people.

On the other hand the right in this country described itself as 'not labour' whatever that means.

 

[Maggie Greg]

Originally posted by Porthos


Maggie Greg, good post.

I think that most of the left in Australia actually believe in a leaning towards the socialist ideal, as opposed to an absolute. To point at the Australian right and compare their ideals to those of an African military dictatorship is pretty much equally as false.

Lenin was a revolutionary, there can be no doubt about this. And revolutionaries kill people. I am also put in mind of other `examples' of the modern day, where entire countries are bombed as an `example'. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a major political change that didn't result in deaths (except Australia becoming a constitutional monarchy)

However, the ideals of socialism (and one of its offshoots in communism) are still there....like many ideals, they may well be unachievable or even impossible, but they are still something to work towards.

Anyone that says that the USSR was a political angel is kidding themselves.....but similarly so with the bastion of capitalism, the US.

Porthos, the biggest political change that did not arise from major bloodshed was the fall of communism in eastern Europe. It has worked in some countries being mainly the ones that were better off anway pre WW2 whereas in places like Albania it left a vacuum filled by the mafia because 50 years of this type of communism caused the population to lose their character and they know only the use of corruption to get ahead and not work.

It is sad.

 

[PeteLX]

Can someone please define 'left wing'.

Does this mean socialist to anyone? And what does socialist mean to you?

I tend to think left = support workers rights and right = supports bosses rights.

Who needs more assistance? Those who are rich and want ways to increase their wealth, or those who are unfortunate and need assistance from those who can afford to help?

Should we not attempt to help those who can't help themselves? Isn't this a good basis for society?

What's the alternative?

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by PeteLX
I tend to think left = support workers rights and right = supports bosses rights.

I've got a slighty different view on how to interpret the left vs the right. In general terms, to me, the left represents the rights of the collective over the individual, whilst the right represents individual rights over the collective.

If you want to translate that into the area of industrial relations, that would mean that the left wants all workers to be in a union regardless of their personal preferences whilst the right wants people to make up their own minds on whether they want to be in a union or not.

You could probably apply this to several different areas, for instance, the right to bear arms or social welfare policy. But there are some areas where the political sides swap around....for instance, with homosexuality. It could be argued that the left supports the individual right for a person to chose their own sexuality whilst the right would argue that it is a negative for society as a whole if people are homosexual.

Ultimately, I would be on the right wing of the political spectrum simply because I believe in individual rights over collective rights (although not in all areas).

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by PeteLX


I tend to think left = support workers rights and right = supports bosses rights.

Like Shinners, I think it's better defined as collective and individual rights. Unfortunately with collective groupings, they tend to take the liberty to speak for everybody, not just those that agree with them.

I don't find too many left wing colleagues in my blue-collar workplaces, that defend my "worker's right" NOT to join a union.