Poll: Are most leftists utopianists?

[Rajin Cajun]

What's your distinction between utopian and idealistic as far as government policy? What did the Stalinists expect to acheive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Other then they mean two different things? Most Communists are realists and understand a perfect society is not possible what most believe anymore is that if Communism isn't the answer it is the a step in the right direction. Their thoughts not mine. Stalinists do not believe in Internationalism they also tend to hold very different views from other communists they tend to be very nationalistic and protectionist. They also view homosexuality as abhorrent and consider it a Bourgeois "Disease". Stalinists hope to achieve Socialism/Communism in one country then move the Revolution on from there.

 

[Dys]

In pretty close to the same way if you ask me. They both seem to think they know what's best for the people, but that hardly seems the case. On one side, you've got fascism, on the other you've got communism, and the people don't seem to happy with either.

How can nobody be happy under a communist system? Wouldn't it make sense for a large scale communist society to at least exist before we make those claims? I mean, by definition it us utopia, which is by definition the perfect world so then surely it stands to reason that if a communist society was to exist, everyone would be happy?

Semantics. If I must be so specific, I mean communism as we know it, not as how it's supposed to be. I realize there hasn't really been a true large scale communist society yet.

But there is no communist as we know it, the nations that claimed to be communist were totalitarians, which is further from communism than capitalism. You wouldn't judge democracy based on the democratic rebublic of congo, why judge communism based on north korea or the USSR. If we were to say communist meaning the society closest to communism we'd probably be talking about france or canada, which isn't very exciting or different from the US system. If you are talking about stalinism I'd ask you to call it by name, us idealists tend to take offence at being likened to dictators.

 

[Naeo]

No. Extreme leftists, yes. But extreme rightists are too. Moderate leftists are hardly utopianists.

 

[fulano]

In pretty close to the same way if you ask me. They both seem to think they know what's best for the people, but that hardly seems the case. On one side, you've got fascism, on the other you've got communism, and the people don't seem to happy with either.

How can nobody be happy under a communist system? Wouldn't it make sense for a large scale communist society to at least exist before we make those claims? I mean, by definition it us utopia, which is by definition the perfect world so then surely it stands to reason that if a communist society was to exist, everyone would be happy?

Semantics. If I must be so specific, I mean communism as we know it, not as how it's supposed to be. I realize there hasn't really been a true large scale communist society yet.

But there is no communist as we know it, the nations that claimed to be communist were totalitarians, which is further from communism than capitalism. You wouldn't judge democracy based on the democratic rebublic of congo, why judge communism based on north korea or the USSR. If we were to say communist meaning the society closest to communism we'd probably be talking about france or canada, which isn't very exciting or different from the US system. If you are talking about stalinism I'd ask you to call it by name, us idealists tend to take offence at being likened to dictators.

Amen.

Sadly there are people all around that seem to believe they have what it takes to bash the notion of what ommunism actually is while on the side saying that capitalism while having its share of problems just isn't that bad. Of course they know jack shit about latin america, its totalitaristic-conservative-military regimes, and the policies they enforced.

 

[-Drifter-]

In pretty close to the same way if you ask me. They both seem to think they know what's best for the people, but that hardly seems the case. On one side, you've got fascism, on the other you've got communism, and the people don't seem to happy with either.

How can nobody be happy under a communist system? Wouldn't it make sense for a large scale communist society to at least exist before we make those claims? I mean, by definition it us utopia, which is by definition the perfect world so then surely it stands to reason that if a communist society was to exist, everyone would be happy?

Semantics. If I must be so specific, I mean communism as we know it, not as how it's supposed to be. I realize there hasn't really been a true large scale communist society yet.

But there is no communist as we know it, the nations that claimed to be communist were totalitarians, which is further from communism than capitalism. You wouldn't judge democracy based on the democratic rebublic of congo, why judge communism based on north korea or the USSR. If we were to say communist meaning the society closest to communism we'd probably be talking about france or canada, which isn't very exciting or different from the US system. If you are talking about stalinism I'd ask you to call it by name, us idealists tend to take offence at being likened to dictators.

I say communism as we know it because there are few other examples to go by. I haven't heard of actual communism being practiced anywhere, except maybe Yugoslavia, but I don't know much about them, so I'm not sure if that's actually true.

 

[CIA]

In pretty close to the same way if you ask me. They both seem to think they know what's best for the people, but that hardly seems the case. On one side, you've got fascism, on the other you've got communism, and the people don't seem to happy with either.

How can nobody be happy under a communist system? Wouldn't it make sense for a large scale communist society to at least exist before we make those claims? I mean, by definition it us utopia, which is by definition the perfect world so then surely it stands to reason that if a communist society was to exist, everyone would be happy?

Semantics. If I must be so specific, I mean communism as we know it, not as how it's supposed to be. I realize there hasn't really been a true large scale communist society yet.

But there is no communist as we know it, the nations that claimed to be communist were totalitarians, which is further from communism than capitalism. You wouldn't judge democracy based on the democratic rebublic of congo, why judge communism based on north korea or the USSR. If we were to say communist meaning the society closest to communism we'd probably be talking about france or canada, which isn't very exciting or different from the US system. If you are talking about stalinism I'd ask you to call it by name, us idealists tend to take offence at being likened to dictators.

I agree, but would also like to point out that true democracies don't really exist. My ideal government would be direct democracy with communism. That could probably only work in small communities, mind you.

 

[WinkyTheGreat]

Only if most right wingers are dystopianists.

This with the edition of "Only if most right wingers are fear mongering, power hungry, greedy, idiots." See, it can be done both ways. I am fairly far to the left myself. I don't expect utopia, I just want people to have equal rights and to work for peace. I know Conservatives who feel the same way. The problem is people in the media give BOTH sides very bad press (Fox News for example). I know that not every conservative is bat shit crazy like Glen Beck. You should realize that not every "Leftist" is a communist hippie. Generalizing is a stupid and terrible thing. /rant

 

[Dys]

In pretty close to the same way if you ask me. They both seem to think they know what's best for the people, but that hardly seems the case. On one side, you've got fascism, on the other you've got communism, and the people don't seem to happy with either.

How can nobody be happy under a communist system? Wouldn't it make sense for a large scale communist society to at least exist before we make those claims? I mean, by definition it us utopia, which is by definition the perfect world so then surely it stands to reason that if a communist society was to exist, everyone would be happy?

Semantics. If I must be so specific, I mean communism as we know it, not as how it's supposed to be. I realize there hasn't really been a true large scale communist society yet.

But there is no communist as we know it, the nations that claimed to be communist were totalitarians, which is further from communism than capitalism. You wouldn't judge democracy based on the democratic rebublic of congo, why judge communism based on north korea or the USSR. If we were to say communist meaning the society closest to communism we'd probably be talking about france or canada, which isn't very exciting or different from the US system. If you are talking about stalinism I'd ask you to call it by name, us idealists tend to take offence at being likened to dictators.

I say communism as we know it because there are few other examples to go by. I haven't heard of actual communism being practiced anywhere, except maybe Yugoslavia, but I don't know much about them, so I'm not sure if that's actually true.

But that's my point, we don't know it. We have named the the USSRs regime stalinism, if that's what we are talking about use it's name. Pretty sure we have named every political regime ever to be implemented. How can people have an intellectual discussion when we are making up our own definitions as we go.

And yeah, CIA is right, there is no actual democracy anywhere in the world, and it isn't likely that there ever will be.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Not really Utopian thinkers so much as idealist. Their intent is to do good but usually turns out stamping out the rights of the individual. You want universal tax payer funded health care (a noble cause, the universal care part) but you want me who will never use it to pay for it(under threat of imprisonment and loss of property) and live with its restrictions(look at the NHS it England for example). That is inherently unjust.

I don't mind paying for services I use roads national defense etc. But anything else is ridiculous. Why should my money go to fund foreign aid in Africa at no benefit to me, why is it my duty under threat of imprisonment to pay for an art grant? So while the end result is good for some it is still an affront to the individual and renders us nothing more than subjects to a state. Seeking some sort of benevolence from the powers that be and thinking ourselves lucky when they see fit to bestow us that which is already ours.


Anyways yeah most are idealist but i'm the same(just on the opposite end of the spectrum) so I can't complain about that.

 

[Kollega]

Let me clear this up. Communism is certainly a good idea - on paper. I think that founding fathers of communism philosophy - Marx and Engels,and also Lenin was idealistic. They wanted to achieve utopia,or at least a better world for everyone. But then!

Then Stalin came along,and shat all over good idea,hijacking it for his own twisted ends.

Now,after the fall of Soviet Union,most of left-wingers are hardly utopianists.

 

[CIA]

And yeah, CIA is right, there is no actual democracy anywhere in the world, and it isn't likely that there ever will be.

You're killin' the dream, man.

 

[Skeleon]

What's a leftist, anyway?
A communist? A socialist? A social democrat? A liberal democrat?
Anyway, I say "no" to your claim, since generalization makes me angry.

 

[Slacker2000]

Utopia itself is improbable. No matter how well society works there will be people who will be unhappy with it. and those people are usually right next to the word GENOCIDE! As far as I know the closest thing on earth to a Utopia is now somewhere beneath the ocean. All the others require you to die before you're "poofed" there.

P.S. If anyone does find a Utopia, don't tell anyone else. It'll be fun to watch us suffer.

 

[Bat Vader]

From my interactions with leftists I get the idea that they are utopianists, often in denial. When asked if they are utopianists they will say "no, but I think we can do more to (insert cause here)" Yet they never seem to be satisfied. They always want another law to try to advance their causes.

Some seem to want complete economic equality, a classless society, believing anything else would be unfair. Some seem to think that enacting strict enough weapons laws will lead to a peaceful, weaponless society; England for example. Some believe that there is a right not to be offended and that "hate speech" laws will make a civil and polite society. Some are bothered by other people poor health and want taxes or bans on certain foods/ingredients such as trans fats. I think they'll continue to push their agendas no matter how many laws they pass or how the results turn out.

The name of a major leftwing group suggests utopian thinking.
There is a leftist group called ANSWER who's goal is to stop war and end racism.

Conservatives on the other hand generally want to preserve the things they like, but don't expect to create a utopia. Proponents of capitalism aknowledge that the system isn't perfect. Socialists/leftists seem to think they have all the answers.

Communism is a Utopian idea because while it is admirable it would never work on a global scale. Too many greedy people. Socialism could work but again there are greedy people and Socialism is when the government wants the best for everyone.

 

[Valiance]

Most?

I think every human when you boil right down to it is a Utopianist.

Show me the politician who DOESN'T want better schools and a better economy, eh? I think everyone wants the same thing, and we just go about getting it in different ways...

And of course, no one wants to fight anyone else naturally...it just comes down to two people needing to eat and there's only food for one.

(And other such things.)

 

[A random person]

Some seem to think that enacting strict enough weapons laws will lead to a peaceful, weaponless society

That's about the opposite of what's true. There's less crime if everyone is dangerous. Just look at Texas. It has the lowest crime rate in the U.S. and why? Because everyone is packing. Your not going to fuck with people if you know there's a good chance they'll shoot you.

Texas has one of the highest crime rates in the U.S. New Hampshire has the lowest.

Thank you. Not as bad as South Carolina however, which is second only to DC. And we're pretty fond of our guns too.

So you're arguing against trying to improve the world?

Leftists tend to favor an authoritarian government approach to improving the world. I tend to disagree with that.

And the right wing doesn't? "Law and order" approaches to government, PATRIOT Act, moral legislation, and the general compromising of liberties for security (which Benjamin Franklin was very opposed to), seem pretty authoritarian to me. Ok, the left does support safety legislation and in extreme cases communism, but at least those mean to provide safety and resources to people, misguided attempts they may be.

The extremes on both sides want utopia, they just differ in what utopia is. The leftist ideal of utopia is just generally viewed as the better one, as opposed to the rather twisted vision of the extreme right (keep in mind I mean extreme, as in bible-thumping, gun-hugging, chauvinistic, possibly racist rednecks or pastors).

 

[A random person]

Most?

I think every human when you boil right down to it is a Utopianist.

Show me the politician who DOESN'T want better schools and a better economy, eh? I think everyone wants the same thing, and we just go about getting it in different ways...

And of course, no one wants to fight anyone else naturally...it just comes down to two people needing to eat and there's only food for one.

(And other such things.)

You get the smart prize, especially for knowing that people aren't just brutal savages, they just fight over resources (don't forget dogma, of course, that sparks a lot of fights too).

 

[Valiance]

You get the smart prize, especially for knowing that people aren't just brutal savages, they just fight over resources (don't forget dogma, of course, that sparks a lot of fights too).

Thank you, sir. It feels good when I log on and see that I've been quoted by a random person thanks to my simple logic.

 

[timmytom1]

Unless you`re an anarchist you`re a utopianist of some kind,problem is our visions of utopia differ

 

[timmytom1]

Oh boy.
"Are all x y?"

Are all conservatives fascists?

Honestly. Political bias is stupid.
Both wings are fucking retarded in completely different ways.

Very much this