That ignores the power that systems have in both influencing those inside it (pressure to conform/invoking people with capitalistic values so they perform better within the system) and the resistant the system itself has to change. Neo-Marxist Gramscian ideas go a long way in explaning how the system resists change, inlfuences people, and even absorbs anti-system figures into the fold of capitalism (e.g. anti-Capitalist punk being commercialised).
That pretty much isn't "left" though, you said it yourself, "neo-liberals" are actually just either centrists or righties. You're talking about the parties.
It's as left as actual political representation and action in the United States goes/gets.
These are the people the left elects. I don't think they're progressive or very far left, but they do represent the left, and are elected by the left in the US.
You could, at best, say they are left in relative terms. They are left of the Republicans, but in terms of ideology, they are not left, fairly objectively if you want to speak about ideologies in objective, static, and global relative terms.
Sure
But I'm not talking ideologically
I'm speaking practically.
These are the practical examples of the left the US has offered up. They are the left in american politics, it doesn't matter that they aren't as left as you want them to be, not in the context of this argument. Unless the members of the left get out and start voting actual leftists in, this is the example of the left the US is giving us, neo-liberals.
There is no good reason for one person to accumulate more wealth than hundreds of thousands of people will see in their entire lifetime.
Do you know how big a billion is? Consider the fact that it takes about a week and a half's time, eleven days, to count to one million at one count per second. That's without breaks. To count to one billion, you need about 11,574 days, or 31.7 years, of nonstop counting. Then there is the issue of the human brain being literally unable to process the grandness of these numbers in the -illions. Why should I feel a person is justified in accruing more money than anyone can actually fathom? Why should this continue to be allowed?
When you say "the left is still responsible" for a situation where, actually, it's because of being to the right, it can be a little...misleading?
How's it misleading? The democrats represent the left. They do. You can't argue this. They are not as far left as many people would like, as stated here. Yet, they are the only "left" party to be voted in, they are the only real "left" opposition to the conservative right.
If the US was voting in more left members to fill the democratic party with, they'd still be the party of the left. They're left by being in opposition to a right wing party. If you want them to be "More left" you have the power to change that in a democratic society.
Are you practicing political relativism or something?
Sometimes, outdated ideas call for an outdated approach, amirite?
So you're admitting that the "American left" aren't left wing, but you try to blame "the left" for being part of the problem, despite there being no actual left in the US, just capitalists not as right wing as the most right wing capitalists in the US? So, this is just a problem among capitalists, then?
Well unless you have a handbook on how you explain objective relativism in a world that lacks objective markers
They literally aren't the left. Why the hell would different countries have different political compasses? Why wouldn't there just be a set of objective standards by which we define the parties and we hold to that? To blame "the left" makes it seem like the left ideology is not the solution, but it is. It is misleading.
They're left of the right. They represent certain elements of progressive ideology. They represent a wide swath of view points, and are the political force that american members of the left vote in.
I do not understand how you can say "They're not really left" when other members of the left wing voted them in.
lol what? so there's no objective mathematics no philosophical logical consistency that can be used to define different types of ideologies? Why would each country need its own compass, seriously seems retarded and doesn't even make sense in a practical sense because...how do you go more left than the most left person currently in your political system?
I'm learning from everyone else on here. I mean, looking at some people's posts, sick zingers is the quest, right?
That "progressive ideology" is social liberalism - it's liberalism. There's some crossover with liberals and left-wingers in terms of social policy, but that's where it ends. But, I don't know if you noticed, this whole thread is about economics, and there is no economic left in the US. Liberal social policy is also shared by libertarians on the right, so it's not exclusive to the left, so it'd be false to present social liberalism as a left-wing ideology.
What would you consider left wing economic policy?
You actually already understand that we're talking about two different contexts. You're treating politics like it changes for every country, but we're adhering to a standard, one which you'll find is remarkably consistent (the Authoritarian vs Libertarian, Controlled vs Free economies), so why act like we're not making any sense when, in our context, it makes perfect sense, just as what you're saying can "make sense" in your context.
I mean shit, how can you even have a "left" and "right" if you aren't appealing to some other standard, how can you accept that? Your political relativism is silly.
He could easily want that and not be a "communist." Here, let me get you a resource.
If that's the case, then how do you define the scale? Because countries in the UK are all right wing compared to other countries in the world, so if you're trying to compare two options within the same country, you do so in the context of that country.
Personally I'd consider social democracy and social market economics (e.g. those of the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1950s-1970s) to be where left-wing policy "begins", taking into consideration all important economic manifestations of left and right wing economics throughout history and across the globe.
See, you just did it again. You want substance, then provide it. You get what you give "laddy".
How can they be to the right? They have a controlled welfare state economy. Maybe the politicians really hate the status-quo and want to get rid of the NHS, housing, welfare, etc...but well, okay then they're to the right.
He's just analyzing your post in a very objective way. He is actually responding to a post here, maybe to change the way that posters go forward. And YOU created that post, so how is he "just at fault" as you?
"I won't contribute because someone called me laddy". Stop making excuses for your own ignorance and apathy.
Have any literature on that? I'm having a hard time finding anything clear cut.
It's ultimately an interpretation but there is academic consensus - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1984.tb00080.x http://www.jstor.org/stable/2669295?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Left and right ultimately remains a clumsy and simple way to ideologically label anyway as it's never the neat fit people want it to be
Because other countries in the world don't have any of that? You think that governments in the middle east are more left wing than countries in Europe? What about Russia? If you start on the road of comparing all countries to one another, then you have to take all of those governments into consideration as well when creating your scale, and there are probably a LOT more left leaning countries than there are right leaning countries in the world. That's why we compare groups based on their context and relation to one another, not globally.
I make no excuses. Are you just going to continue this cycle?
I haven't really done much reading into political science, so I'm not going to try and argue that I know the agreed upon, or perhaps best, method for comparing politics...but it doesn't seem like it'd be a relativistic one.
We're just two guys in a shootout waiting for the other to run out of ammo.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
