Political leftism

[willcowskitz]

I'm interested in differences between the abstract of "leftism" from different perspectives, especially USA vs. Europe. I'm not looking to define leftism as profoundly as possible (please no communist-implications or other obviously associable concepts), already because people are generally hopelessly incapable of objectiveness, and because I believe the contrasts create the picture so I'm more interested in those. I'm willing to see short descriptions based on generic impressions that would describe leftism's ideology, mentality and motives (exterior or interior, visible or invisible) by a few adjectives or sentences. Personal political opinions regarding the subject are not important.

Any contribution appreciated.

[athykay]

I see leftism as having a greater focus on the collective good of mankind than rightism.  Leftism has traditionally been associated with social welfare and also egalatarianism.  I believe, based on personal experience, that left leaning people are more other-oriented (as opposed to ego-centric) than right leaning persons, also more introspective and willing to admit mistakes and generally less rigid and more apt to question and challenge authority and the status quo. 

Ha! How's that for psycho-babble?  Boy am I going out on a limb on this one having been informally annointed as the despised queen of the left on another (ahem) forum.

[SandyS]

I believe, based on personal experience, that left leaning people are more other-oriented (as opposed to ego-centric) than right leaning persons, also more introspective and willing to admit mistakes and generally less rigid and more apt to question and challenge authority and the status quo. 

This is a typical view by many leftists.  It is however, a delusional viewpoint.

[abe]

lol, the unbridgeable gap between the left and right. I'm not educated enough to contribute aptly to this thread, but I can see the divisions that it will produce. Good luck trying to get a civil conversation about "leftism".

[galonia]

I see leftism as having a greater focus on the collective good of mankind than rightism.

Aren't left and right just different opinions on the best way to achieve the same outcome?  I would say both want to achieve good for all mankind, they just disagree on how best to get there.

[Motrax]

Indeed, succinctly put. 

[earthward]

This is a typical view by many leftists.  It is however, a delusional viewpoint.

Nice of you to offer that without any arguments to support your claim.  It really doesn't matter who's right and wrong since no one has a monopoly on the truth.  What matters is the discussion... 

[Egon von Sprocket]

Leftism or Liberalism or Socialism or whatever other name it goes under is a collectivization, synthesis and homogenation of the human spirit. It makes free men and women into beast of burden toiling for the common weal; eyes cast down to the earth, without dreams, without hope without individual purpose.

Leftism sucks the lifeblood out of creativity and daring.  It makes criminals out independent thinkers and independent doers.  It eats away at the core of permanent and transcendent values so that truth and good and God are mutable and changeable whims of the masses.

Leftism is intolerant and bigoted--it cannot stand criticism, free thought or ambition.  It's ultimate goal--utter gray sameness and it uses everything from Politically Correct speech to quicklime thrown in shallow graves to achieve it's ends.

But worst of all:  Leftism has no sense of humor.

[Hmoll]

Conservatism believes that change is not good. The government has no business helping the poor and disenfranchised, no matter how many blocks long the soup line is. They believe that once the government spends a dollar helping feed a starving person, we are all on a slippery slope towards communism. They believe values are the most important fabric of society, as long as it's their values. Fundamentalist Islam is a form of conservatism. Women who wear Western clothes are punished as a threat to their culture and values, the same way conservatives in the US think two women or two men living together in a civil union, and not harming anyone else, are a pernicious threat to their way of life. Conservatives believe the government has no right to interfere with their life in matters like taxation, gun ownership, polluting the environment, etc. However, they strongly believe the government should interfere with a woman's right to choose when it comes to having an abortion or not. Conservative have always believed that government should be by the people, of the people, and for the people, and that all people are created equal. However, their definition of "people" might not be the same as yours.

[SandyS]

Nice of you to offer that without any arguments to support your claim.  It really doesn't matter who's right and wrong since no one has a monopoly on the truth.  What matters is the discussion... 

Of course it matters who's right and wrong. The idea that "what matters is the discussion" is as wrong headed as outcome based education (another leftist perversion) where getting the right answer isn't important, all that's important is that you tried your best. That's nuts. As for not offering any arguments to support my claim, there's no point. Leftists won't understand it, and rightists already know.

[willcowskitz]

Thank you athykay, Egon von Sprocket and Hmoll (though I didn't ask about "rightism", I'm glad if the thread has a life of it's own). May I ask where both of you (athykay, Egon) are from, because it is really relevant to the original goal of my post?


SandyS,

The figure of your speech hints that achieving fate in your own superiority over those that do not share your views is more important to you than getting "the truth" out to people, hence your contribution lacks value to real discussion, especially if you're not the least bit willing to explain your own view. Your comment "leftist will never understand, rightists already know" only strengthens this impression due to it's nature of trying to pull people behind your statement without any real effort or basis, by appealing to this same characteristic in people around you to make them visible to yourself and illusionally appear to concretically support this "shared thought". This setting reminds me of religious fundamentalists who have by their thoughts and beliefs shared by masses of other people induced a state of madness which they use to raise group mentality and feeling of unity on cost of objectiveness and real growth, because it allows them a security net from what they fear - be it people around them or beyond the border, the devil, God's wrath, or a more complete picture of reality. So please, be my guest and share your thoughts, but don't do it in the name of creating an "elite of thought" that only communicate by whispering with each other, sharing thoughts that have been derived from somewhere, instead of representing the roots of those thoughts.

[Hmoll]

  As for not offering any arguments to support my claim, there's no point. Leftists won't understand it, and rightists already know.

So. As long as you have nothing to say, why did you decide to join this discussion?

[Egon von Sprocket]

Thank you athykay, Egon von Sprocket and Hmoll (though I didn't ask about "rightism", I'm glad if the thread has a life of it's own). May I ask where both of you (athykay, Egon) are from, because it is really relevant to the original goal of my post?

Dear Willcowskitz,

I have been known to frequent a piano forum in another place. 

All the best,

Egon

[Hmoll]

Thank you athykay, Egon von Sprocket and Hmoll (though I didn't ask about "rightism",  the original goal of my post...


 

...Which would be...?

[willcowskitz]

Egon, I of course meant where do you reside/what is your cultural background society-wise (if you've 'recently' moved).



The goal of this thread was to find out how people's national or cultural backgrounds relate to their views on leftism. I'd choose not to elaborate on this at this point as I suspect it might threaten the sincerity of the content of replies that this thread might still receive, besides which there is no real reason for me to. The subject itself interests me because these are times when people are practically being forced to pick a side. This is merely an analysis.

I have something to ask the right wing, though; Since when has liberalism and socialism been associated with each other? Liberalism (or neo-liberalism) is actually a relatively rough system from the individual's point of view, with no welfare nor heritage taxes. It favours free trade and individual's freedoms over forced equality - if you don't have what the system requires, you'll vanish, as a free man. The role of government as an authority is also reduced to minimum, which is one among other huge contrasts to communism. Where does the connection between the two come from?

[Egon von Sprocket]

Egon, I of course meant where do you reside/what is your cultural background society-wise (if you've 'recently' moved).



The goal of this thread was to find out how people's national or cultural backgrounds relate to their views on leftism. I'd choose not to elaborate on this at this point as I suspect it might threaten the sincerity of the content of replies that this thread might still receive, besides which there is no real reason for me to. The subject itself interests me because these are times when people are practically being forced to pick a side. This is merely an analysis.

I have something to ask the right wing, though; Since when has liberalism and socialism been associated with each other? Liberalism (or neo-liberalism) is actually a relatively rough system from the individual's point of view, with no welfare nor heritage taxes. It favours free trade and individual's freedoms over forced equality - if you don't have what the system requires, you'll vanish, as a free man. The role of government as an authority is also reduced to minimum, which is one among other huge contrasts to communism. Where does the connection between the two come from?

Dear Willcowskitz,

My apologies, I misunderstood.  I am a child of immigrants to America from Poland--they came here ever so slightly before WWII and avoided all the fuss.  I was brought up poor but worked a little and so now I live pretty comfortably.   My parents taught me a wonderful work ethic--"pay your own way."  We never believed in taking any handouts--I never even took college scholarships that were offered.  That way of thinking has made me successful and happy.  I would like the opportunities I had in life to be shared by others.

But overall, I'm just not interested in getting together with a "whole lot of people" to be governed, managed, inspected, approved, disapproved or taxed.  I certainly don't want handouts from anyone and would expect not to be "required" to give anyone handouts.  That is not to say that I don't believe in charity--I think all who have more should help those who have less as best they can--but understand--charity should always be a voluntary thing; to give it is not an obligation and to receive it is not a right.

I believe that a nation that governs best; governs least.

As far as the word "Liberalism" goes--in America it has acquired a new meaning, that of Socialist.  A Conservative in America would be what you Europeans would call a neo-Liberal.

In your terminology, I would be considered a "Liberal."

[ehpianist]

Leftists believe that all of us will have a bad day at some point in our lifetime and that when we do it would be nice to have a safety net to keep us from starving and having no home.

The right believes that if you have a bad day it's all your fault and you deserve it.

Regarding social welfare, it will always be very difficult to balance giving help to the truly needy on the one hand and avoiding welfare leeches on the other.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[athykay]

Thank you athykay, Egon von Sprocket and Hmoll (though I didn't ask about "rightism", I'm glad if the thread has a life of it's own). May I ask where both of you (athykay, Egon) are from, because it is really relevant to the original goal of my post?

I'm from the US - originally the Midwest and now the east coast.

I must admit,  I find it difficult to attempt to define leftism without reference to the juxtaposition of rightism  - an interesting exercise.

[Hmoll]

Instead of defining liberalism, I'll just say where I stand.

I'm from NY - originally upstate, now NY City. I tend to be liberal in some things and conservative in others. My political beliefs stem not from any idealogy, but from a pragmatic sense of what is right, and what can help the majority of society (BTW, I can sometimes argue either side of an issue in a devil's advocate kind of way).
An example of this is, I think the type of welfare that exhisted in this country from the 1960's until Clinton's welfare reform was bad for society because is created a huge buracracy while maintaining a welfare class of people who had no incentive to work. That was a liberal ideal I disagreed with. On the other hand, there is always a segment of society that is so poor that the government should not turn its back on them.

Another aspect of "typical liberalism," for lack of a better term, I don't like is a sort of semantic Fascism, where the very words you use - black, oriental, retarded, etc. - must be replaced by the politically correct vocabulary of the moment. I believe that all people regardless of race, religion, sexual preference (as long as what they do is not against the law, and harmful to others), sex, and so forth, should have equal opportunity under the laws, but that doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade (no pun intended).

The best of liberalism tries to help society, the environment, the unfortunate. Also, it is thoughtful, pragmatic, and full of common sense. The worst of liberalism tries to portray too many people as victims, and too many people as oppressors. Also, there is a sort of knee-jerk, follow the liberal line on all issues aspect to it.

I lived in Cambridge Massachusetts  - probably the most liberal city in the US - for about 7 years.  That's most likely why I turned my back on a lot of standard left wing thinking. People usually think of me as a liberal, and I probably am more left than right.

[Egon von Sprocket]

Leftists believe that all of us will have a bad day at some point in our lifetime and that when we do it would be nice to have a safety net to keep us from starving and having no home.

The right believes that if you have a bad day it's all your fault and you deserve it.

Regarding social welfare, it will always be very difficult to balance giving help to the truly needy on the one hand and avoiding welfare leeches on the other.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

Elena,

I would gladly accept a welfare system as long as the "takers" understand that they are receiving charity and the "givers" understand that they are under no obligation to give.

An occasional "thank you" might be in order, too.  Just good manners.  

[ehpianist]

But don't you think most people are stingy and want to keep money to themselves?

Except when a huge catastrophe happens which makes them feel guilty for not helping, I don't think charities alone would be able to sustain the luckless.  I wish it were not so as it would make the whole situation a lot less complicated.

And Willcowskitz, I'm from Puerto Rico, though I have been living on and off between Europe and the USA since 1991.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[Egon von Sprocket]

But don't you think most people are stingy and want to keep money to themselves?

Dear Elena,

It depends on what you believe about the nature of the  human race.  If you believe that people are essentially evil, then Leftism might just be a good plan to save us from each other.  As a Catholic, I believe that people were created good and through sin are fallen, but our inclinations are basically good and we will do the right thing for each other if given the chance.

Leftism takes away the opportunity for us to do good for each other, it takes away the hope that we will do the right thing for each other.  It mechanize our hearts and puts the barrier of the state between the love we should have for our fellow human beings.

[ehpianist]

Leftism takes away the opportunity for us to do good for each other, it takes away the hope that we will do the right thing for each other.

Based on??  If your bizarre rationale were true that would mean that Canadians and Europeans are less friendly, kind, and charitable than Americans.

In fact, the very numbers show that the majority of human beings are not of a generous nature.  If people are not forced to give the money up, they are less likely to do so.  Because of the Estate Tax, Americans try to lower their taxes through charitable donations, in Europe where Estate tax is significantly less and the tax breaks for charitable giving are not as clear, the proportion given to charity is substantially lower.  This is not that the Americans are culturally trained to be more generous, it is that they are required to give whereas the Europeans are not.

"The U.S. and Western Europe have approximately equal GDPs, but in general, European countries depend less on the estate tax for revenue than does the U.S. In 1999, total charitable giving was $190 billion in the U.S. and only $20 billion in Europe. Repealing the estate tax would likely bring total charitable giving down toward  Western European levels." https://www.ksworkbeat.org/Millionaires_Tax_Cut/Charitable_Giving/charitable_giving.html

"Statistics have long shown that the amount of charitable giving in Europe lags far behind that in the United States. But the reason probably has more to do with discouraging tax rules than innate differences in generosity of spirit. That's certainly true in Britain, where until April, any head of a British charity-including universities-asked about attracting private money would have said it was extraordinarily difficult, due to the tax code being so much less favorable than in the United States. "

https://www.abdn.ac.uk/principal/speeches/07-04-00.shtml

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[Egon von Sprocket]

Based on??  If your bizarre rationale were true that would mean that Canadians and Europeans are less friendly, kind, and charitable than Americans.

Elena,

Your statement above may just be true. 

You can read your statistics either way.  You can say that Americans are more generous and that they luckily have a tax break, too.  Europeans have given up--they just let Big Brother do everything for them.  Not so much here in America. 

If you look at the facts carefully--Americans give a lot more than their tax advantage lets them.  And on that subject--what's wrong with a tax break?  Why must Eurepean governments CONTROL giving to the needy? 

Why can't they just give their people a tax break and let THEM decide?  It's a further problem with Leftism.  The Soviet Union failed--and as Europe gets more and more Socialist can a failure of economy be far behind their failure of will? 

And then a man will come along as one always does in Europe when thing fall apart and he'll say, "This will solve all our problems: let's kill all the ..." 

[ehpianist]

If you look at the facts carefully--Americans give a lot more than their tax advantage lets them.

My dear Evil Clown/Perv:

Could you please point me to where these facts you have looked at carefully are?

In life, nothing is black and white and there are many shades of grey, and to categorize the most basic levels of a social safety net as a slippery slope to Communism is not only unjust but rather self-serving.

We both know where we stand.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[calidris]

Elena is absolutely right.

I think one of the biggest problems is that leftists and rightists view eachother as extremists, which is in most cases unjustified.

I think it's safe for me to say that I'm a socialist, but if communism were white and the center was black, I'd be pretty dark grey. 
One of my fellow students is a communist, he has even founded a little political party, the ALS (Active Left Students).  I used to have discussions with him about it.  His way of thinking truly scares me.  I'd rather have a moderate right government than a communist government.  But I prefer a moderate left government above all. 

[dinosaurtales]

Elena,

Your statement above may just be true. 

You can read your statistics either way.  You can say that Americans are more generous and that they luckily have a tax break, too.  Europeans have given up--they just let Big Brother do everything for them.  Not so much here in America. 

If you look at the facts carefully--Americans give a lot more than their tax advantage lets them.  And on that subject--what's wrong with a tax break?  Why must Eurepean governments CONTROL giving to the needy? 

Why can't they just give their people a tax break and let THEM decide?  It's a further problem with Leftism.  The Soviet Union failed--and as Europe gets more and more Socialist can a failure of economy be far behind their failure of will? 

And then a man will come along as one always does in Europe when thing fall apart and he'll say, "This will solve all our problems: let's kill all the ..." 

Well put, Egon!  You are so right!

[dinosaurtales]

Elena is absolutely right.

I think one of the biggest problems is that leftists and rightists view eachother as extremists, which is in most cases unjustified.

I think it's safe for me to say that I'm a socialist, but if communism were white and the center was black, I'd be pretty dark grey. 
One of my fellow students is a communist, he has even founded a little political party, the ALS (Active Left Students).  I used to have discussions with him about it.  His way of thinking truly scares me.  I'd rather have a moderate right government than a communist government.  But I prefer a moderate left government above all. 

My biggest problem with a "left" government is the idea that various aspects of my life need to be "controlled" such as my healthcare and retirement options, how much I am allowed to earn (we are closer to this than is evident if you look at  the tax laws!  )  and ultimately, what I "may" do for a living.  I am a 48 year old adult.  I am capable of managing my own adult life thank you. 

the picture that is painted of Europeans and Canadians is one of a glorious society, where folks get 3 months of vacation per year, don't have to work very hard, and are "taken care of".  I see this as a slippery slope down hill.  They are so close to "just getting by" - I think there are more of them that are unhappy with it than the news lets out.  They are collectively living off the fat that has been collected over hundreds of years in terms of wealth and ability to get by.  But this will eventually end.  But look at their perspective - the Europeans have a history of constantly being at war or at least worried about it - like when are the Germans or Russians going to show up next?  So now they are in a position for the first time historically where they feel a little more at ease with the EUnion and all, and I think they think we should all do the same.  We don't have those same problems here. at least not in that way.

I personally believe that competition is a healthy thing.  Without it, we wouldn't have nearly the technological, medical, business, and social advances we have now.  I think people are smart enough to manage their own lives, and should be left alone to do it.

[musik_man]

Elena, I doubt that even a large minority of the difference in private charity is due to the estate tax.  It would seem more likely that it's due to the lower overall tax rates in the US.  Lower tax rates encourage more giving both by allowing people to keep more money(which means they have more to give) and by raising the incentives to give, since one can't justify not giving by the existance of a large welfare state that would support the poor for them.

Even if certain taxes increase private charity(by making ppl give to avoid the tax), I would say that the added giving should be counted as a government redistribution.  In essence, a tax like that amounts to saying "If you don't give $20 to that homeless man, I'll take it from you."  That sort of charitable giving is the same as the government taxing you and sending out a welfare check.

Anyway... To answer the original post.   I would define Liberalism as a philosophy that is willing to abridge certain individual rights in attempt to better society as a whole.(Although I believe that these abridgements usually worsen society overall)  The extent to which one is willing to do this depends on how far left one is.  A moderate liberal might want to criminalize racist speech in order to keep society civil, while a full blown commie would be willing to defend Stalin's killing of tens of millions in the USSR because he believes that it was necessary to the advancement of communism, which he equates with progress.

[ehpianist]

My biggest problem with a "left" government is the idea that various aspects of my life need to be "controlled" such as my healthcare and retirement options,

No, this is a typical misconception from the right.  Private healthcare  exists in all socialist countries and, if you have enough money to pay for it, the government doesn't stop you from having it.  Same goes for retirement.  

But for the majority of people who cannot afford proper healthcare, the government is there not only to provide them the most basic services but also any major surgery, cancer treatment, etc. that the person may need.  And they won't spend the rest of their working lives paying the bill.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[ehpianist]

A moderate liberal might want to criminalize racist speech in order to keep society civil, while a full blown commie would be willing to defend Stalin's killing of tens of millions in the USSR because he believes that it was necessary to the advancement of communism, which he equates with progress.

The mass murder of millions has nothing to do with communism, but rather is the result of a propaganda-monopolizing government that feels the need to eliminate its oponents in large numbers.  Millions have been murdered in non-communist countries to further their causes as well.

What I find interesting is why conservatives live under democratic governments at all.  In their mind it is each man for himself, the richer the man, the better he can protect himself and his wealth.  This reminds me of the middle ages where each Feudal Lord has his own mini-kingdom and personal army to protect his own interests. 

The whole point of having a government at all, and especially one elected by the people, is to even out the playing field for those who have less.  The reality is that we can't ALL be on the top rungs of wealth all at the same time.  Our economic system would cease to function.  I think providing those who have less with the most basic necessities of education and healthcare is the least the rich could do.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[Egon von Sprocket]

The whole point of having a government at all, and especially one elected by the people, is to even out the playing field for those who have less. 

Elena,

Put down the bottle and put your hands on the police car.

You are not fit to drive, tonight.   

Egon

[Egon von Sprocket]

Millions have been murdered in non-communist countries to further their causes as well.

Are you speaking of the (Nazi) National SOCIALISTS?

[Axtremus]

Willcowskitz,

To address the point of your original post, I'm in the same geographic region as athykay, and my view on political leftism/rightism is that I don't care much for either. If you're trying to collect statistics on how many from what geographic regions define leftism how, I hope there's a "don't care about the label" category in your statistical classification.
 
------------------------------------------------
To EHpianist, Egon, and other discussing the taxation of charity,

Don' t take it too seriously, but here's another way to interpret whether the Europeans or the Americans are more charitable: The Americans care so much about charity as to amply accommodate it in its tax code. Though on the flip side, these charity provisions in the tax code do get exploited by tax payers. So it's hard to say whether the Americans keep the charity provisions in the tax code strictly because they think it's such a great virtue, or partly because they figure the more charity provisions in the tax code the more the can exploit to pay less taxes.

-----------------------------------------

On to supporting welfare versus forcing people to "take responsibility for their own well-being" ......

When a society pays for welfare to help the down-trodden, I submit that it's not simply for charity or your own safety net. Welfare can be thought of as security insurance as well.

Those who see no hope to find subsistence may turn to crime and violence. Give the poor some help every now and then, give them hope, and you reduce the probability of they turning to crime and violence out of desperation. You can pay welfare to reduce the risk of the down-trodden turning to crime and violence in the first place, or you can pay for tougher security measures (e.g., larger police force, neighborhood watch initiatives) to deal with the increased level of crime and violence later. The former may well be more cost effective than the later.

So the taxes that go to welfare system is part charity, part your own safety net, and part  premium to insure the security of the society in which you live and work.

[earthward]

Of course it matters who's right and wrong. The idea that "what matters is the discussion" is as wrong headed as outcome based education (another leftist perversion) where getting the right answer isn't important, all that's important is that you tried your best. That's nuts. As for not offering any arguments to support my claim, there's no point. Leftists won't understand it, and rightists already know.

People have to try to find some common ground though.  We can't go around thinking that anyone with a differing view is simply wrong and we're the only rational one.   Wouldn't be a very functional society. 

With regards to "all that's important is you tried your best:" It comes from the rationale that you have to have a process in order to have an outcome.  In many situations, focussing on the process may mean you don't immediately achieve the desired outcome, but at least you're one step closer to achieving it because you understand the process. 

[musik_man]

The mass murder of millions has nothing to do with communism, but rather is the result of a propaganda-monopolizing government that feels the need to eliminate its oponents in large numbers.  Millions have been murdered in non-communist countries to further their causes as well.

Mass murder has always come with the rise of communism, to say otherwise shows you need to brush up on your history.  Millions also died in Cambodia and China when communist revolutions took place there.  Communism killed more people this century than any other ideology.  It's not a good form of government that has gone wrong.  It's a disgusting totalitarian ideology.

The whole point of having a government at all, and especially one elected by the people, is to even out the playing field for those who have less.  The reality is that we can't ALL be on the top rungs of wealth all at the same time.  Our economic system would cease to function.  I think providing those who have less with the most basic necessities of education and healthcare is the least the rich could do.

Governments exist because people's rights need protection.  You're right that not everyone can be on the top rung of the ladder at the time, but is that really important?  Only if you view accumulation of wealth as the purpose of life.  As long as someone has enough money to take care of his most basic needs, he's fine.  And I sense a bit of hypocrisy here.  You think that the rich should subsidize the poor, but relative to the vast majority of the world, you're quite rich.  Should the government take half of your income and give it to starving third-worlders?

Our economic system is not dependent at all on the transfer of wealth.  In fact, high taxation discourages economic growth by messing up people's incentives to work, buy, save, and invest.  There's a reason that the US government systematically outperforms Europe.  Our economy is more free.

[Motrax]

Though I'll not really join the discussion, for Willcowskitz' interest I'll post my few thoughts on the matter.

I live in Maryland, near Washington DC, in a very affluent area (though I'm not rich, a 10 minute drive takes you to people who have their own private stables and tennis courts).  The political leanings here are largely liberal and Democratic. My family came from the Soviet Union 'round 1980, and I was born shortly thereafter. Almost everyone in my family is economically conservative to some degree.

As for myself, I've found that the liberal ideology in this neighborhood seems mostly bent on pushing an agenda, as opposed to doing what's right. I do support a smaller, uninvasive government, and I believe money should be spent on educating people to both be successful and charitable of their own right. I'm sure my own ideology stems partly both from my very left-leaning surroundings and my conservative family, but I feel that my political beliefs are rooted in whatever sense of decency and good I might (hopefully) possess. I also believe that the majority of people are good at heart, although upbringing in many cases can bring out the worst in people, both rich and poor.

But I've auditions tomorrow, so it's time to get back to work.

[xvimbi]

Governments exist because people's rights need protection.  You're right that not everyone can be on the top rung of the ladder at the time, but is that really important?  Only if you view accumulation of wealth as the purpose of life.

Our economic system is not dependent at all on the transfer of wealth.  In fact, high taxation discourages economic growth by messing up people's incentives to work, buy, save, and invest.  There's a reason that the US government systematically outperforms Europe.  Our economy is more free.

What does the "US government outperform the European" in? You probably mean economics. This is because in the US, the accumulation of wealth is the purpose of life (in addition to constantly having to prove that Americans are "better" than the rest of the world). Europeans are quite happy with their values and are willing to give up some material wealth for them. In the US, people live to work; in Europe, people work to live.

You say, high taxation (in the US) "discourages economic growth by messing up people's incentives to work", but in Europe it stimulates people's incentive to live a happy life by providing a comfortable environment. It's amazing that Europe has gotten that far, although they have such a messed up system (in your opinion). Let's see, they have better cars, better planes, better food, better museums, better health care systems, better retirement systems, better TV programs, nicer furniture, fashion, hmmm...

[ChristmasCarol]

Interesting how quickly this sort of topic is reduced to outrageous accusations against the opposing view.   Is it possible to express one's views without tearing down another?  I'm from the Northeast in the USA.  I grow incredibly weary of this particular action of attacking one another's views.  It is crippling this country right now in my opinion.  Why as a human race are we finding it so damn difficult to get to a common ground?  Bums me out really.  In point of fact, there are different perspectives and ideas that can work well in any human interaction if the intent is positive.   For example, we all have heard how Chinese women have had no rights.  And yet, I was surprised to learn that the woman of the house manages the finances.  A surface view of things is never enough information.  After the tsunami, I wonder how soon any of them were thinking of damn politics.  And yet, everyone is reaching out to help.  Okay, I'm rambling,

[Egon von Sprocket]

Let's see, they have better cars, better planes, better food, better museums, better health care systems, better retirement systems, better TV programs, nicer furniture, fashion, hmmm...

Better at killing people, too.  In the last century alone:

Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39)  13,000,000 killed (the purges)

Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 killed (concentration camps and civilians WWII)

Charles DeGaulle (Algeria, 1954-1962)  1,000,000 killed

Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)  900,000 killed

Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000 killed

Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-96)  180,000 killed

Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20)  30,000 (dissidents executed)

Francisco Franco (Spain)  30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)

And what new shephard will the sheep find next to lead them?   

[xvimbi]

I didn't claim Europe is perfect. Every country has had its dark times. However, I think we are comparing today's situation, not past history, and at the moment, it's the US who does the invading and killing.

[Egon von Sprocket]

I didn't claim Europe is perfect. Every country has had its dark times. However, I think we are comparing today's situation, not past history, and at the moment, it's the US who does the invading and killing.

That's recent history, my friend.  And America is simply defending itself from those who would do it harm--and the number of dead, you must admit insignificant compared to even your lesser known dictators.

But alas you miss my point--you Europeans (I am assuming you are a European,) are setting yourself up for just another session of all this killing as long as you keep up your "let Adolph do it, " attitude toward government.  Things always are lovely before the storm.

BTW xvimbi, what country are you from?   

[ehpianist]

Axtremus, you make excellent points (as usual).  

Musikman: perhaps you should brush up on *your* history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#The_Americas

Saying that mass murder is caused by the communist ideology is like saying that pre-emptive wars are caused by democracy.

Although Communism looks great on paper there are big problems with the philosophy, not every human is willing to put other people's needs ahead of their own and will use the situation to their own advantage. Whereas the theory would perhaps work if humans were a perfect species, but we're not.

Throughout history most States have mass-murdered innocents, whether in war or peace, in order to get oponents out of the way and establish their power.  The US has killed 100,000 Iraqis in less than a quarter of the time it took Saddam Hussein to kill 300,000.  Does this mean that Democracy is now to blame for mass murder? (Although I find we are quickly moving away from a democracy but that is another subject).

Governments exist because people's rights need protection.  You're right that not everyone can be on the top rung of the ladder at the time, but is that really important?

The rich don't really have a need for government protection, they have enough money to protect themselves both physically and legally.  The only people that need the government's protection are those who can't afford it.  For the rich the government is just a cheaper way of maintaining their security.

And considering that, proportionately speaking, the rich are the least likely to pay their taxes it actually becomes quite a deal for them.

I don't have time to respond to your second parragraph at the moment although honestly, if my money were to actually make a difference in a third world country, I would be happy to give it  BUT handing money to governments of the developing world is not the solution as it tends to get squandered in corruption. That's why donating through an established charity is the way to go.

Mind you, I am not really a socialist, in fact, when I was living full-time in the US I thought socialism was just one step away from communism, as you do.  But after living 8 years in Europe I see what xvimbi is talking about, healthier families, healthier culture, healthier people, enjoyment of life.  Obviously there are many exasperating down sides to this, business moves slower, more frequent strikes, lower salaries for some (because they are more equitable across the board), it takes a week to get your phone hooked up, things like that. But I think the trade off is worth it. And NO ONE --not the European governments nor the people-- is talking or even insinuating about communism.  Dont forget that the Europeans lived in fear of being eaten up by the USSR, if anyone can't forget what communism was it is the Europeans.

My whole gripe is that I still  firmly believe that the two undeniable rights every goverment should provide to its citizens in return for their taxes are healthcare and education.  I'm not talking about handouts for everything.

Christmas, no one is attacking anyone.  We simply have differing views and we are stating our side and finding reasons that support them.  I find this to be one of the most cordial discussions of right vs. left I have had in a long time, even with Mr. Egon around.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[ehpianist]

By the way, Europe is not really socialist.  It is Democratic socialism, which allows for elected governments, private property and all the other benefits of a parliamentary democracy.  The socialism here is only in education, retirement and health.  It has been socialist for decades and has not slid even an inch towards communism.  If anything it has become more capitalist and market oriented as time has passed. I think the slippery slope fear that Americans have comes from the cold-war culture where anything associated with government intervention was seen as communism.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[xvimbi]

But alas you miss my point--you Europeans (I am assuming you are a European,) are setting yourself up for just another session of all this killing as long as you keep up your "let Adolph do it, " attitude toward government.  Things always are lovely before the storm.

If people from any country have that attitude then it's clearly the US citizens. They don't know squat about what is going on in their own country, let alone in the world. They blindly follow what their government is doing, without any critical evaluation. The current US government does a lot in complete secrecy, and they can get away with it, because nobody is challenging them.

Europe has well learnt its lessons. Let's hope they will remember them forever. Can you understand that Europeans are scared when they see someone like George W.? They have experience with such "leaders".

BTW xvimbi, what country are you from?   

I'm cosmopolitan.

[Egon von Sprocket]

Europe has well learnt its lessons. Let's hope they will remember them forever. Can you understand that Europeans are scared when they see someone like George W.? They have experience with such "leaders".

Apples and oranges.  America doesn't have dictators, sorry.  Europe: they can't keep a bad man down.

I'm cosmopolitan.

 I'm cosmopolitan=embarassed to say.   

[ehpianist]

 xvimbi, if I may make a recommendation, you are pointing out mistakes to the US as an outsider, and hence you will never be taken seriously.  Best to be polite in your criticism as half of the American population is aware of the problems and is trying to figure out what to do about them, and the other half doesn't really care what you think.  The half that does cares is the half that needs international support, so be nice to them.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[ehpianist]

Egon, my dear, you will not goad me into discussing things with you, I know where you go with them.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[xvimbi]

I'm cosmopolitan=embarassed to say.   

What does my country of origin have to do with my leading this discussion? May I remind you that about 50% of your fellow citizens did not elect their current government. I do not assume that all Americans think alike, and you should not assume that I am European because I share some European values. I am not embarrassed about my country of origin, whatever it is. I also do not care where other people come from, but I do care about what they think and believe in. I would be embarrassed if I couldn't think for myself and make up my own mind, which is more important than any pseudo-nationalistic sentiments.

Elena, just saw your post, and that's exactly what I have just written. And - I am not an outsider 

[ehpianist]

Elena, just saw your post, and that's exactly what I have just written. And - I am not an outsider 

ooooooooh touché!

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com