Hmmm, strange.
And their even sadder present? That's all capitalism, baybeeee.I think that the current separation you employ is a coping mechanism to distance your ideology from the sad history and legacy of the USSR and its proxies.
And their even sadder present? That's all capitalism, baybeeee.I think that the current separation you employ is a coping mechanism to distance your ideology from the sad history and legacy of the USSR and its proxies.
Yes, the reason why there are 100ks of ballots with only Biden at the top are the fault of the Dem establishment. I am hopeful there will be a happening that will blow this open but as always, nothing ever happens.
Hmmm, strange.
And their even sadder present? That's all capitalism, baybeeee.
"Personal responsibility" is a punchline. It's a talking point used by conservatives to justify their anti-human stance of no social safety nets.Is there any possibility, at all, that the abandonment of the labor movements were as a result of the policies and rhetoric coming from those movements? i.e. some personal responsibility for their own failure?
I don't think that is a very good distinction. The eastern leftists as you call them were certainly socialist and communist and they did share pretty much the same goals with their western counterparts. Disagreements were about how to get there and even more, what they could do.I also think we need to make a distinction between "Western" leftism and "Eastern" Leftism as it pertains to Europe and the existence of the USSR. Communism in the USSR is very distinct from the largely social democratic socialism that gained traction in Western Europe. As I pointed out in the other thread, I struggle to really see the USSR as actual socialism or communism as it was an oligarchy or dictatorship for pretty much all of its existence. I can see how my analysis of the left is only really viable for Western Europe (and to some degree the USA), because Eastern Europe and large parts of Asia were under the yoke of the USSR and its oppressive system. They have an entirely different political trajectory.
This is backwards.If I wanted to point to one distinct problem with the Left it is that it tends to want to think the best of people.
On that note, I'm pretty sure capitalists would follow this same logic when arguing that fascism is not the same thing as capitalism. They share roots, but are different enough to be considered separate rather than merely synonyms.Hence you can't compare or draw similarities between the communism in Hungary and the social democracy in Denmark, which means you need to keep them separate when discussing them historically.
You can be correct if only "social-democracy" isn't socialism and merely an attempt by liberalism to embrace social-programs in order to suppress the proletariat. A successful attempt in places like Denmark.The problem is that USSR style Communism has about as much in common with Social Democracy as Pinochet's form of capitalism has in common with US capitalism. They share the same root but are two very distinctly different political ideologies, even in what their end state is. Hence it is necessary to point out that in terms of trajectory the two are different, if not because they are ideologically different (which they are) then because they were separate due to the Cold War. Most social democrats in Europe distanced themselves from the USSR (though not from China ironically), whereas the communists kept close ties to the USSR. Hence I think the separation is important because communists have had a very limited influence on western Europe (except in terms of terrorism), whereas social democracy has had a major impact. Hence you can't compare or draw similarities between the communism in Hungary and the social democracy in Denmark, which means you need to keep them separate when discussing them historically.
You mean the right is on the side that thinks people are capable of taking care of themselves and those around them, and the left thinks direct action of federal government is an absolute requirement to keep people from dying alone in a ditch.I am not saying either of these is good, because the Left can be dangerously naive and the Right has a point in that you need to motivate people to change. But the left is the side of the spectrum that traditionally assumes that people will be responsible with public works like welfare, whereas the right is the side that assumes welfare will be a freeloaders paradise.
lol nopeYou mean the right is on the side that thinks people are capable of taking care of themselves and those around them, and the left thinks direct action of federal government is an absolute requirement to keep people from dying alone in a ditch.
Or, you could act like an adult and acknowledge that you are not as familiar with the subject matter as you presumed and as consequence have been relying on poorly thought out post-hoc rationalizations for an untenable position you're stubbornly holding onto past the point of reason. One need look no further than your inane "oh, but the First Amendment isn't sufficient because if a corporation passed a law it wouldn't apply" nonsense for that much to be patently obvious. And that you insist on "well under <increasingly implausible chain of circumstances> Sharia could be passed and we should ban it anyways (despite the fact that it's already functionally banned)" tips your hand more than I think you realize.Or you can you know realise Sharia law is a bad thing that would target the people you claim to be on the side of and for once it's an issue Republicans also would like to see a law passed over so take the opportunity to protect people anyway and get the Republicans moving on to dealing with actual issues?
But no more important to dig in and fight over beliefs of what your opponents might do with this even though it's far more powerful and effective to let them keep it on the table and far more damaging to trying to actually get change.
It's not nonsense. You're claiming that the people who chant "eat the rich" see the best in people.If you don't want to engage with or attempt to understand what I write that's fine, but please stop wasting my time by making nonsense replies if that's the case.
Joe Biden is not the DNC. Joe Biden is barely Joe Biden these days.“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.”
Yes: the nutritional value.It's not nonsense. You're claiming that the people who chant "eat the rich" see the best in people.
And here I thought it was because they weren't being paid what they're actually worth by the capitalist class.You know why there are so many poor Republicans? It's not cause they're racists, put that out of your mind. It's not cause they imagine themselves as millionaires, put that out of your mind. It's because they want to take care of themselves, and they're tired of the pity from people who don't understand them.