Give one me one logical well reasoned non maymay argument as to why the left is wrong

give one me one logical well reasoned non maymay argument as to why the left is wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=p9Y24MFOfFU
who.int/macrohealth/action/sintesis15novingles.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Which country? Which left?

What?

left wing in general.
progressives in general.

Freedom of the individual over both the mass and the government.
Religion
Adherence to (mostly) good traditions

Their economic positions are largely untenable.
They believe in superficial rather than substantive programs as far as helping minorities, such as censorship, which actually upset people and do more harm than good
Gun control is ridiculous and won't stop crime. Only a lack of motive can stop crime. Economic reform would be the most effective criminal justice reform.
Overall, liberals compromise too much and don't go far enough when they are correct, and go too far too unflinchingly when they are incorrect, almost as if it's a principle of their psychology.

Wrong board man.

>describing a republican, not a conservative
Fuck off ameritard

fuck im really high and cant read.
I drank some water and read your post again and it was completely different.
wtf ambien
God i need to stop this
sorry

pol only cares about memes and never engage in political theory.

at least this board read books.

It's not right, which is the definition of being wrong.

Left wing just means that you are fiscally in favor of a government controlled markets and social handouts. Beyond that left wing positions vary greatly depending on the country you are talking about.

So you want to talk about communism / socialism vs. capitalism?

I value that you seek to engage in discussion, but these kinds of threads really don't belong here.

I'm really new.
I understand left wing as the guys who want to help poor people.

pol is a shithole only seeking masturbation.
maybe we can talk about the diferences between the left and the right.
isn't political theory also literature?

Wrong board.

Those who think it wrong are simply into authoritarians squeezing them into submission. A sort of socioeconomic S&M. They prefer to be deluded with all manner of spooks the way the little brother rebels at the thought that Santa isn't real. The past is the way they want to go. The poor dears.

my left or yours? stage left is kind of important; it's where the prompter is. stage right has its charms too, but burn the court not the garden, you know?

I thought you were a fascist

Left wing is about freedom from X
Balance of autonomy and community.
It's been a bumpy ride full of fakers on both sides though

>Says this thread doesn't belong here
>Proceeds to rattle off his own left-wing opinion
God, I love this board.

Wrong about what?

I am an anarchist.

Before that I identified as a "progressive liberal" but in 2007 was well aware Obama was going to sell out in the end.

from lurking pol I used to think traditions matters in terms of social cohesion, and then I'd agreed with right wingers.

but I'm watching a video of Richard D. Wolff, a marxist economics and his arguments seems better and more logical as to why we need to move away from capitalism into a better system.

of course I'm confused over both systems.

The economic calculation problem

>maybe we can talk about the diferences between the left and the right.

except that's never the real intention of these kinds of threads

>I'm really new.
>I understand left wing as the guys who want to help poor people.

Well you can't really discuss politics if you don't have a basic understanding of it.

And that definition is kind of a misnomer. Right wingers in america want to help poor people too, just not in the same way the left does. The left wants to help poor people by giving them handouts and redistribute wealth manually. Right wingers in america want to help poor people by giving them jobs and business opportunities and help the people who can't help themselves with voluntary charities. It's a different approach.

Right wingers in the US want freedom from government control.

pol maymays.

Are you also a tranny

here we go guyz

Type "a gentle introduction UR" into Google.
Read first link.
????
Wtf I hate leftism now

I think I remember the butterfly in some /lgbt/ threads
He can join Constantine in the ranks of 'tranny trips who ruin everything'

Was just gonna post this exact question.

I like this post, apology accepted.

Since my time lurking here, he seems to one of the few willing to provide substantial responses, regardless of whether I have disagreed with some of them

Absolutely we need to move away from capitalism.
I read a good book about the industrial revolution and felt like I was almost coming full circle in my sympathies for the reactionary right of those days. There's no reason real conservatives shouldn't be voting Green (in the US) as it would put them back in charge of their own plot of land to grow for the local communities.

>conservatives should vote for a radical policies because I don't understand the difference between being wanting to conserve our achievements and wanting a radical reversion to primitive times

are u the real butterfly

>Right wingers in the US want freedom from government control.
I know. It gets tricky in the US. There are plenty of liftwingers who feel the same, just as there are plenty of rightwingers who love their big government. Its a matter of corruption and classism.

No. A middle aged woman.
I hung out in a few lesgen threads. That's not supposed to be a tranny thread, though they all like to hang out there. (Lots of swm trolls too or course) I am lesbian.

I'm talking about actual conservatives, bae, not classical liberals, which is mostly what the GOP are made of now.

>Absolutely we need to move away from capitalism

Technology as we see it now allows a tangible realization away from the capitilist model. The error that Marx made, of course my understanding is still in its infancy, was that his predictions was too soon. It's only now in the hi-tech info age were are capable of implementing his theories

I think it's more the case of the types of control either wings prefer, but control nevertheless.

>I'm talking about actual conservatives
>>There's no reason real conservatives shouldn't be voting Green (i the US) as it would put them back in charge of their own plot of land to grow for the local communities

In what world is 'real conservatism' the promotion of a radical agrarian reversion? You seem to have been duped by the libertarian belief that conservatism is about selecting your favourite historical memes and then pretending that this is some how not just rationalism

you don't understand conservatism

>you don't understand conservatism

what's your defininition

>know. It gets tricky in the US.
It's the problem with a two party system, seemingly incompatible interest groups have to work together if they want a shot at changing things.

>Its a matter of corruption
Corruption is a problem in both parties. Lobbyist have a choke hold on big government and control who can become president or reach a high status in the senate factions. A problem that people are waking up to, as demonstrated in the recent rise of financially independent candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. That's why establishment types of both parties back Hillary.

In the past it didn't really matter who you voted for, the big corporations would always win anyway. This is the true reason for classism. Increasing welfare and handouts to the poor is just treating the symptoms and not the disease.

fake butters has been wearing dead butters' skin so long they're melting together o.o we're a hot day away from this tranny reading vidal. please date me myrabutters

Autism speaks

Yus.

Exciting times.

Some people can't imagine a world without a government, and in this corrupt and violent world, you can't blame them. What I would call true left know we need to dither that authority to local communities, but only in a safe world where everyone is more or less on the same page. A difficult balance and hard to see in a capitalist society, I know.

The reactionaries of the industrial revolution wanted to get out of the cities and factories and go back to the country, to their little plot of land and live simply. How have they changed all that much?

Why are girls allowed on Veeky Forums?

>Increasing welfare and handouts to the poor is just treating the symptoms and not the disease.

marxists would agree

we couldn't ban moot

I don't think you can really produce a definition of conservatism, but crucial elements in the tradition are scepticism about human reason, respect for the status quo, respect for tradition, risk aversion, and a belief in human evil. All of these things run counter radicalism in any form, even if that radicalism favours small scale agrarian production or whatever

>How have they changed all that much?
Read a book, slut

How retarded are you? Reactionaries in England at one point supported absolute monarchy, it doesn't mean that if I support absolute monarchy now I'm a conservatism.

Conservatism is about conservation - not radical change. When agrarianism and 'simple living' are the status quo, it is conservatism to support them. When they haven't been for hundreds of years, obviously it is not conservatism to support them.

typical trip fag

>to dither that authority to local communities, but only in a safe world where everyone is more or less on the same page

And sadly it's harder to maintain local communities, much less build one, because of redevelopment projects that essentially atomizes people

>Left wing just means that you are fiscally in favor of a government controlled markets and social handouts.

Retard.

>government controlled markets

that's a stretch. business regulation is almost as lax in Denmark as it is in Singapore. The real difference is in taxation (which is high for individuals, not so much for companies)

>This is the true reason for classism.
The real reason for classism is capitalism
>Increasing welfare and handouts to the poor is just treating the symptoms and not the disease.
How about direct assistance. A free education, home and healthcare. And instead of a basic income, a basic allotment of food and clothing.
Only because they want them to riot and manage to take control. I sympathize with the dream, but it can happen in a variety of ways.

I am melting into an older woman, duder. How're you? And I already read Vidal.

Are you claiming there are no people like this left anymore? You don't know conservatives. I was raised as one.

I'm speaking generally, duh.

>denmark is socialist

are you seriously this retarded

>>I'm speaking generally, duh.

In what way is that a defence of the fact that you said 'real conservatives would support muh radical delusions'?

Why are you on Veeky Forums when you have clearly never read a book

I'm sure there are people like that left, but they don't represent the entire group. Do you hate the right because of daddy issues? Did you get rejected by your family for being a lesbian?

I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page in terms of the descriptions of conservatism, which we are from what you've stated.

On the matter of the status quo (which obviously varies place to place), isn't "live off the fatta the lan'" fits into the vision of "Make America Great Again"

Please stop coming to our board. You clearly have a Wikipedia-tier understanding of philosophy and political science.

*doesn't

it definitely qualifies as socialist by a lot of definitions, admittedly most of them come from Americans. I'm assuming that's where OP comes from.

What's so delusional about growing food on a farm? Folks believing in climate change and the need to fight it?
HAVE YOU SEEN THE POPE?

>Why are you on Veeky Forums when you have clearly never read a book
Pffffff. Go back to your Turner Diaries.

It doesn't if that isn't the status quo. Perhaps you can correct me, but as far as I see not many Americans live "off the fatta the lan'" at all, so to produce a state of affairs in which many did would not really be conservative. Maybe reactionary, or primitivist, or even traditionalist, but it isn't conservative.

right and left are memes

>Did you get rejected by your family for being a lesbian?
Christian conservatives? Reject a homosexual?
They probably never knew.

Please stop shitting up my board, frogger.
No doubt about it. Our broken education system on full display on Veeky Forums.

They're generalizations

Why do you post on Veeky Forums? Be honest

both the left and right are spooky but the right is spookier than the left. A union of egoists is the only society worth living in

>My board
You're triggering me, stop it

...

Spooks everywhere.

>I am melting into an older woman, duder. How're you? And I already read Vidal.
Real butters knew better than to talk to me. ;_;

Post your titties please

youtube.com/watch?v=p9Y24MFOfFU
I've seen a few campaign ads where they're standing in a pig farm, hunting game or what have you. I guess I'm talking about the imagery and motifs used by conservatives (of today) that can be characterized as agrarian and how that figures into the ideology

...or perhaps it's just one of the expedient things in politics in general...

Okay, but that's not really relevant to the question. It may suggest that Trump's campaign isn't very conservative, because it depends on a mythical and sentimental idea of the American nation. It depends whether many americans do live in that agrarian manner and whether his campaign constitutes an attempt to conserve it

Free education, at least for practical subjects, should also be a right wing position to be honest, it is an investment into the economy. You get an economical return out of it.

Free healthcare is a different animal all together. It is not an investment but a redistribution of wealth. It is a fragile system that only functions as long as you have a constant supply of employed younger people who pay for the health care of old and unemployed people. It leads to drastic measures like government supported mass immigration like we saw in childless germany. Personally I am in favor of it, but the dangers shouldn't be underestimated.

Handouts can also enable a culture of anti-intellectualism like we see in the black community in the US. People need to be convinced that participating in the economy is a worthwhile goal. Which is something I am not really seeing from the US government, neither left nor right.

>it is an investment into the economy. You get an economical return out of it.

Implying stupid leftists don't say this about literally everything anyway. Hurr durr digging holes and filling them up again is an investment

Try harder communist

>it's a tripfag pretending to be a tripfag who pretended to be a women robot kissass episode

>some people justify everything with X
>therefore X can't be used to justify anything

Okay champ

>some people don't understand reference to Keynes
>therefore some people are stupid

Correct champ

>but that's not really relevant to the question

But isn't imagery part of selling a manifesto and the like?

>It may suggest that Trump's campaign isn't very conservative
True, from policy sound-bites alone Clinton and Trump aren't massively different

It's relevant to the campaign, it isn't relevant to whether he is a conservative or not. Nor is the distance between him and Clinton

>a redistribution of wealth
Wealth, in all seriousness, should never be measured in money, but ourselves. What we can do for each other in producing goods and services not least of all in emotional support. The use of money is where humanity went wrong, and moving to drop it, will only improve the quality of life.

A healthy worker shows up for work. Healthcare is an investment in the economy.

Oh hush.

>People need to be convinced that participating in the economy is a worthwhile goal

That's hard to do when services like learning centres, where you are able to build your on your education levels, have their funding cut or are closed

>A healthy worker shows up for work. Healthcare is an investment in the economy.

And how do you suppose the government is going to determine whether that investment is corresponding to an actual demand?

Oh wait, you have no answer, because you have no idea what you're talking about

>Wealth, in all seriousness, should never be measured in money, but ourselves. What we can do for each other in producing goods and services not least of all in emotional support. The use of money is where humanity went wrong, and moving to drop it, will only improve the quality of life.

I don't really see it. I think it is part of human nature that we need an incentive to invest hard work and time into something like getting an education. If you remove money as an incentive then why would anyone bother to become an engineer? If you want to abolish money then you need to come up with a different kind of repayment.

I know what I'm talking about and I know what you're talking about. The difference is that we disagree and you're a sociopath and likely a racist or even nationalist. Spooked.

Oh my

>I think it is part of human nature
The human brain is quite malleable
>why would anyone bother to become an engineer?
Why, everyone would become a NEET and a Hiki! Every-stinking-body!
Ignoring the fact they're here now and yet everyone works themselves into an early grave or fights in a war to protect other people's claims on oil that isn't theirs.

>If you want to abolish money then you need to come up with a different kind of repayment.
With a proper education, generations from now could produce the kind of world anarchists are envisioning.

>A healthy worker shows up for work. Healthcare is an investment in the economy.

If you have a job that creates enough wealth to be worth that investment, then you don't need mandatory socialized healthcare. You will earn enough money to pay into private healthcare and take care of it yourself.

You should stick to the humanitarian argument, because strictly economically mandatory socialized healthcare doesn't make sense.

For-profit everything doesn't work.

Girls are cute.

>And how do you suppose the government is going to determine whether that investment is corresponding to an actual demand?

I'm not erudite so I'll just leave this who.int/macrohealth/action/sintesis15novingles.pdf

page 48 is the conclusion

what if your wages are being undercut but the cost of living is rising?

whats rational for an individual capital is not rational for the totality. as an individual capital if your workers are incapacitated because you don't pay them enough for healthcare then you can just employ labourers from among the unemployed. but in totality having lots of incapacitated workers is an economic inefficiency

>Only because they want them to riot and manage to take control.

I thought it was because the social-democratic state as we understand it to be is ontologically capitalist and therefore cannot provide a system to achieve the socialist ideal?

Socialism is theft

The argument was whether the state investing into you with healthcare is a good investment or not.

Fairness is a completely different matter.

And if your wages are too low to afford a living then you probably should change fields or location because there is an overabundance of people who do the same job you do in that location, so people can afford to pay you shitty wages. If the government gives you money so you can keep afford a living anyway then there is a net loss in the end.

Right. What I meant to infer. They social-democratic state buys off the working class and prolongs capitalism.

Theft is a spook. Nothing is yours until you possess it. Once you put it down or leave it it could be someone else's

I wasn't making a point about fairness, my point is what if the job you work in used to be able to afford you that healthcare but suddenly it couldn't because your wages are being frozen/cut, and that goes for most of the other jobs you could do that could be out there?

> you probably should change fields or location because there is an overabundance of people who do the same job you do in that location
sounds great on paper, i'll grant you that

>then there is a net loss in the end.
Only if there is an underinvestment in developing new skills. Training for a different field requires time and a level of subsidization to carry the transition - which doesn't seem to be happening.

>Training for a different field requires time and a level of subsidization to carry the transition - which doesn't seem to be happening.

Yeah now we went full circle back to free education.