I dislike the Right wing...

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


I love it when so called mature adults get into name calling. "Libbys"?. really? I bet half of your friends are "Libbys" but they say nothing because they see how you act so maturely around someone whose opinion differs ever so slightly from you. Let me guess, you consider yourself a christian?




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


But don't get me wrong 46ace, I'll do the same to someone who belittles you because of your stance. The name calling makes you all look so small, so broken. Do we really have to go there?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
There is no difference between the unions and the capitalists. They all want profit and will use any dirty trick to get it.


Yes there is, the union is a service for the worker, the capitalist exploits the worker. The union protects workers rights, and lobbies on their behalf etc. Unions do not make profit, it actually does cost money to run a union.


You can insult me and berate me all you want, but that'll just show me you're just part of the problem because all you are is a shill for the unions and can't think for yourself.


Sorry if you think I am insulting you. I'm a shill for the unions now? I'm not even a member of a union.

Can't you defend your position with any facts? All you have given me is insults.


And I'll repeat what I said: unions are just another kind of scam artist trying to make a profit. They don't care a damned thing for the workers either, they just want the money for themselves


That is just your uninformed opinion. You have no idea of what unions do, obviously.

Do you think it's right that Chinese workers are forced to work 65 hour weeks, have to sleep on the factory floor, have no health and safety, are payed very low? That's what happens when you don't have unions.


They are not the good guys you portray them to be.

Sorry, you can say I'm being silly all you want to, but that's the honest truth.

I feel sorry for the workers being caught in between the two criminal groups like that.


Well I never said they were the 'good guys', are we in high school or something? Unions are essential for the worker, as history proves. I would guess you are not an industrial worker? Or even care about what I say?

The honest truth? Who's truth? You still haven't provided a good argument against unions.

Two criminal groups? So you admit the capitalists are criminals? So what is the answer? Worker ownership!

edit on 9/7/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




Sorry if you think I am insulting you. I'm a shill for the unions now? I'm not even a member of a union.

Then what the hell do you know of Unions except something from poli sci class???????????
"Ornamental ironworkers"here ( aluminum extrusion plant)


Unions do not make profit, it actually does cost money to run a union.

Yeah they pay their fatcat organizers. Funny they come up with some pretty large donations to buy politicians..

Do you think it's right that Chinese workers are forced to work 65 hour weeks, have to sleep on the factory floor, have no health and safety, are payed very low? That's what happens when you don't have unions.

That my friend is the result of the ultimate"workers paradise!" communism and State central planning.We are all headed there if the socialist and communist get their way.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


I don't get his post? you say you're in a union right? I am in NW Ohio and I would love to be in a union. They make great money with great benefits, My brother in law is a pipe layer, can't remember the one he's in but I know it's one that doesn't make sense lol. But I really don't get all the hatred for unions?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mymymy
reply to post by 46ACE
 


I love it when so called mature adults get into name calling. "Libbys"?. really? I bet half of your friends are "Libbys" but they say nothing because they see how you act so maturely around someone whose opinion differs ever so slightly from you. Let me guess, you consider yourself a christian?


Well.. "there you go again" (Thanks Ronny Reagan)..
You have guessed wrong.
and Thanks for making my point.



Not a wiccan or satan worshipper; but not a practicing "christian"either. Haven't stepped foot in a church for years; don't whisper prayers when I'm unsure.

Go back to the post I replied too. How am I supposed to feel;about a paragraph of insults.?? Replace the word "conservatives"with "gays" or "blacks" or "hispanics" You'd be ashamed of your tone. You just can't see how rude and condescending it is. .


DO you base your insults on knowing any conservatives?


None of you answered my question...
Just got "snotty":dn

:"tap tap tap" on that dividing wedge."badform".
edit on 7-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by mymymy
reply to post by 46ACE
 


I love it when so called mature adults get into name calling. "Libbys"?. really? I bet half of your friends are "Libbys" but they say nothing because they see how you act so maturely around someone whose opinion differs ever so slightly from you. Let me guess, you consider yourself a christian?


Well.. "there you go again" (Thanks Ronny Reagan)..
You have guessed wrong.
and Thanks for making my point.

C'mon, be the bigger man. Just because Peter insults Paul is no reason for Jim to take that road, I see you around here enough to know you're better than that. And you can replace any word with any word and get a desired reaction, but I do NOT hear "blacks" or "Gays" or anyone so proudly affiliated spouting this stuff out. Get over yourself, you're a human being. so am I whether you like it or not

Not a wiccan or satan worshipper; but not a practicing "christian"either. Haven't stepped foot in a church for years; don't whisper prayers when I'm unsure.

Go back to the post I replied too. How am I supposed to feel;about a paragraph of insults.?? Replace the word "conservatives"with "gays" or "blacks" or "hispanics" You'd be ashamed of your tone. You just can't see how rude and condescending it is. .


DO you base your insults on knowing any conservatives?


None of you answered my question...
Just got "snotty":dn

:"tap tap tap" on that dividing wedge."badform".
edit on 7-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mymymy
reply to post by 46ACE
 


I don't get his post? you say you're in a union right? I am in NW Ohio and I would love to be in a union. They make great money with great benefits, My brother in law is a pipe layer, can't remember the one he's in but I know it's one that doesn't make sense lol. But I really don't get all the hatred for unions?


Let me tell you how it works in the real world.
I spent5 years under a factory union( doing industrial maintenance):

Come the Friday before contract negotiatons "our" union reps fly into the local municipal airport ; they get picked up by the factory owner and his two V.P. sons and they all go "up north" to the owners private multimillion(?)dollar lakefront "cabin" for a weekend of guided walleye fishing/ food and drink.

Come Monday Discussions have been had; rep says: "The company wants to run 24/7 including Saturday and Sunday production floor shifts.. they Just don't want to pay the time and a half weekend maintenance premium from the last contract!

so your work week starts Wednesday runs through Sunday.(Saturday and Sunday are now part of the normal work week);But We need maintenance coverage Monday and Tuesday too. You guys will get two days off; may not be consecutive days.We'll rotate the coverage Mondays&Tuesdays" lovely..
Maintenance division chief says:" you guys just go along; scratch our backs and we'll take care of you you'll get extra leniency for taking needed time off. Never happened, they went back on that almost immediately.
Oh- oh you workers voted the contract down!
No smoking on the plant grounds; lets vote again.

graft and corruption. Union never did one good thing for anybody I knew but they took their dues every month.I've Seen guys get their jobs back sooner through complaints to the the state division of labor before the union ever stepped in....
edit on 7-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Thanks 46ACE, apparently my bro-in-law is in a good union, and WOW, I do NOT know how to use the quote button lol



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mymymy
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Thanks 46ACE, apparently my bro-in-law is in a good union, and WOW, I do NOT know how to use the quote button lol

Yup;good for him..

In all fairness We were in a"different" situation: Union millwrights actually had a labor hall they could sign into and get work across the state; we were only a single plant run by a wealthy business owner family but their contract said that particular union("ornamental ironworkers" )had exclusive rights to unionize us also . We couldn't try to get into the millwrights union in town.and still keep our positions. there was definitely a time for unions. But there was time for buggy whip manufacturers too.
My dad was a (non union) Owner operator( Kenworth!) who leased out his truck to a trucking company before and during the wild cat truckers strikes back east in the 70's. non union drivers were killed by teamsters thugs dropping cinder blocks off overpasses. or just being shot through the back of the sleeper cab. He was safe throughout but I heard a few horror stories; I have little love for unions.
edit on 7-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   


Yes there is, the union is a service for the worker, the capitalist exploits the worker. The union protects workers rights, and lobbies on their behalf etc. Unions do not make profit, it actually does cost money to run a union.


It costs money but so what? It's wrong to force people who don't want to be part of a union into a union and then charge them for it. That's the very definition of a scam.




That is just your uninformed opinion. You have no idea of what unions do, obviously.


Sorry, that would be you. You have no clue that all they are is nothing but a big huge ginormous scam to get money the old fashioned crooked way. However, I could provide you with a lot of facts of how the union screwed both workers and the capitalist over, bit you would never buy it because you're so enamored by them and consider them the good guys.




Well I never said they were the 'good guys', are we in high school or something? Unions are essential for the worker, as history proves. I would guess you are not an industrial worker? Or even care about what I say?


Actually yes you are. Your very argument is that they are the good guys and are doing good work for people when they aren't.

I just don't buy it and never will.




The honest truth? Who's truth? You still haven't provided a good argument against unions. Two criminal groups? So you admit the capitalists are criminals? So what is the answer? Worker ownership!


You don't have any truth just argumentation. I admit some capitalists are criminals, but not all of them.

I have no answer, I wish I did.

At this point we'll have to agree to disagree and drop the matter. You are not convincing and I will never convince you.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
If I'm someone that simply believes that the Federal government is an ineffective delivery mechanism for most of the services it attempts to provide, if I'm someone that believes that taxing someone's very productivity (income) is quite frankly immoral and in itself unproductive and I'm somebody who believes that governing should reside as close to the local person as possible and surely not 1,100 miles away (in my case) in a city rife with special interest corruption...these beliefs lead you to hate me? Really?

Why don't you start by telling me which truism you don't agree with? And then tell me why you hang out here.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
There is no difference between the right and left wings, They are just about the same. We just got a bucket from KFC and I didn't notice any difference in the wings at all.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
Then what the hell do you know of Unions except something from poli sci class???????????
"Ornamental ironworkers"here ( aluminum extrusion plant)


I have worked in and followed the labour movement for years. I know enough to understand without unions workers would be screwed. Don't you realise that all the benefits workers have now is because of unions?


Yeah they pay their fatcat organizers. Funny they come up with some pretty large donations to buy politicians..


But they are just playing the game they are forced to play. Capitalists pay off politicians to do their bidding. Capitalism is a corrupt system, and you want to bitch about the unions?



That my friend is the result of the ultimate"workers paradise!" communism and State central planning.We are all headed there if the socialist and communist get their way.


No it isn't because China never had a worker owned economy, no unions. That is not what their communism was all about. You are just assuming things, not making an argument from facts. That is the problem with the discussion of socialism, everyone thinks they know what it is but they have never actually researched anything. If they did have a worker owned industry the western capitalists would never have been able to exploit them.

Blaming the conditions of workers on workers doesn't even make logical sense. You are just looking for excuses.

Socialism is nothing to with state control, it is the workers ownership of the means of production.

edit on 9/8/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I dislike olives. . . . no, scratch that, I hate olives! (they ruin martinis)

But I don't create forums where I encourage others to hate olives. Maybe I should.
edit on 8-9-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Originally posted by ANOK
 

No I believe Churchill new exactly what socialism is, and that is why he new it wasn't liberalism.

Salutations Anok.

Thank you for the clarification. I had misunderstood the implication you were making, I agree with your above post.


Originally posted by ANOK
 

National Socialism has nothing to do with left-wing socialism. I did not say they did not know the correct definition, they changed the definition for their own agenda. They did not mean 'worker ownership' when they used the term. When socialists use socialism they mean worker ownership.


So do you acknowledge National Socialism as right-wing socialism? When you say "When socialists use socialism they mean worker ownership" dont you actually mean "When left wing-socialists use socialism they mean worker ownership"?


Originally posted by ANOK
 

Stalin wasn't a socialist either, he was simply another person in authority using left-wing terms for their own agenda.

You are really out on a limb on that one (IMHO)

What is your opinion of the wiki entry regarding Stalin's brand of government on the matter? Please take a moment to read the remainder of the entry at the link....


Stalinism usually denotes a style of a government rather than an ideology. The ideology was Marxism-Leninism; this reflected the fact that Stalin himself was not a Communist theoretician, in contrast to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, and that he prided himself on maintaining the legacy of Lenin as a founding father for the Soviet Union and the future Communist world.

Stalinism is an interpretation of the ideas of Marx and Lenin, and a certain political regime claiming to apply those ideas in ways fitting the changing needs of society, as with the transition from "socialism at a snail's pace" in the mid-1920s to the rapid industrialization of the Five-Year Plans.

Stalinist_policies



Originally posted by ANOK
 

That is not true. The government wasn't neutered at all, the Nazi Party was the government. The Nazi Party did a lot for the people, it doesn't make it socialist. His government was fascist. He did not support worker ownership and put socialists, communists, anarchists, trade unionists in prison camps.


Anok, you are overlooking the Weimar Republic. There were 14 years between the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and Adolph Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933. If you would, take a moment to re-familiarise yourself with the brutally punitive conditions forced upon Germany.

Treaty of Versailles/ Impositions on Germany

In truth, saying the Weimar Republic was neutered is probably a gross understatement.

The social and economic conditions of post war Germany during the 1920's were significantly worse than the U.S. faced during the Great depression and were pivotal in creating a fertile environment amongst the German citizenry favouring the cultivation of a radical ideology like Nazism.


Originally posted by ANOK
 

No not at all. He was not preaching socialism, he was preaching liberalism. I use the quote as some evidence that socialism and liberalism are not the same thing, as most rightist, and a few neo-liberals seem to think. I am trying to make you see there is a distinct difference, and they came from different places. Liberalism came from the upper classes, socialism came from the working classes. Socialists did not support the Liberals. Marx stopped using the term 'socialism' and used 'communism' because of the Liberals appropriation of the term 'socialism'. Liberals trying to use the term socialism is nothing new.


As I said above, I misunderstood the point you were making regarding Churchill's political view of socialism. You and I are in agreement on a distinction between Liberalism and Socialism as well as the complex nuances of the term's definition between various State ideologies of the time.


Originally posted by ANOK
 

But once again that is not socialism. Social programs, social safety net is a liberal ideology, it is not socialism.
To be socialist he would have to have been supporting worker ownership. Socialism is NOT a form of government, it is an economic system.

As you have clarified your view in this post, I believe you and I are in close agreement up to a point. Your previous quotes....

I am trying to make you see there is a distinct difference, and they came from different places.
and

Socialism is NOT a form of government, it is an economic system.

Are central to the point of our conversation. The term socialism as applied to the time frame under discussion meant very different things to different political theorists hence diversity in a specific definition. For example, many of the core tenants of Soviet Marxism are contradictory to Britain's interpretation liberal socialism yet both are defined as Socialism.

I disagree that Socialism is defined strictly as an economic system. The broadly accepted definition of the term also has a political facet. In support of my position here is the Wiki summation...


The word socialism refers to a broad range of theoretical and historical socio-economic systems, and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating numerous types of socialism.

Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character. Some definitions of socialism are very vague, while others are so specific that they only include a small minority of the things that have been described as "socialism" in the past.

There have been numerous political movements which called themselves socialist under some definition of the term; this article attempts to list them all. Some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive, and all of them have generated debates over the true meaning of socialism.

Types of socialism



Originally posted by ANOK
 

Nationalisation is not socialism. Britain has never been socialist. So you have no point.

You are correct that nationalism is not socialism however the two are not incompatible and history provides numerous examples to the point.

Unless you are still trying to argue that Cuba is not a socialist state you may want to consider that Castro's revolution was deeply rooted in Nationalism. Although Marx saw nationalism as an obstacle to true socialism, Stalin wrote numerous works embracing nationalism as a tool to promote international socialist revolution. Google socialist nationalism and see what you get.


Regarding British socialism, I guess you were unaware that Robert Owen was British and that by your definition quoted above, many of his idea's were not socialism at all but rather liberalism.

Someone once told me "To understand that you need to read a lot of history, because it's not all explained in one place"

Good advice, would you agree?



Originally posted by ANOK
 

What those so called leaders did was not socialism, it was authority using socialist terms for their own agenda.
The original socialists who were the actual architects of it, people you have probably never heard of, is what I use. People like Robert Owen who was one of the founder of socialism and the cooperative movement, because socialism is worker ownership, not despot governments.


Anok, you are making my point for me. The ideologies in question don't conform to your definition of the term.

I am guessing you have never heard of or read Oswald Spengler's Prussiandom and Socialism. You would do well to at least superficially familiarise yourself with the general outline as you seem to have some misconceptions about the role that the theory of Socialism actually played in the formation of Nazi ideology.

Granted, the argument regarding the place of both the German interpretation manifested as National Socialism and British Ethical socialism within the spectrum of true Socialist ideology are convoluted.

On the other hand, both Soviet Stalinism and Cuban Marxism are universally acknowledged as Socialist states both politically and economically. I would argue that every attempt to form a functional Socialist state has included a strong authoritarian component.

I understand your argument equating anarchism to "true" socialism however we both know that ideas like anarchist communism are only just that, ideas. The fact that every attempt at implementing a true Socialist state has resulted in a strong central authority argues strongly that Socialism does not preclude authoritarianism.


Originally posted by ANOK
 

Huh? I don't make stuff up, everything I say can be checked. I supply links and quotes. I have been a socialist for over 30 years. I went to a good school for engineering. Has the thought ever crossed your mind that you might actually be wrong? To find the truth you have to dig, not just accept the first blog you can find that agrees with what you think. The net is full of BS, and you have to have some background in the subject to know what is truth. I was reading socialist and anarchist literature before the net was even heard of. I hung out with socialists who had been in Spain before WWII.


I owe you an apology for that comment. It was off topic and unnecessary. Extra points for hanging out with Spanish Republicanos, Papa Hemingway would approve.

I am wrong about lots of things all the time however....(
) I have both a background in engineering and have spent the better part of 25 years in the trades. Unlike our current (and interesting) exchange, the math is not open to interpretation. As this topic has nothing to do with 9/11, The comment was out of line and a cheap shot I honestly regret.

With that said, just so we are clear, I had passed political science, graduated, started a buisness, gotten married and was raising a teenager before the word blog had been invented. All of us cool kids used to pick up manualy printed communist and anarchist literature from a little store front called left bank books in Westwood just outside the UCLA campus.

Enough said, I will leave it alone.



Originally posted by ANOK
 

Stalin threw anarchists in the gulag. Stalin was an authoritarian. He twisted Marxist ideology for his own agenda. The Anarchist supported the Bolsheviks in the begging but turned against them at the end because they were statist, right-wing not left-wing.

I have tried to explain this but it gets ignored, there is the left-wing of the working class that got started in the early 1800's with industrial workers. Then there is the "left" of the state, authority who was simply trying to maintain it's control. The true left is of the working class, those who were revolting against the authority of the state. To understand that you need to read a lot of history, because it's not all explained in one place.


We are in agreement that this is a very complex subject that does requires a broad understanding of the ideas and events in contemporary history that have shaped the world we live in.

You are unquestionably well read and have clearly given a lot of thought on the topic. In the same breath your views are clearly heavily influenced by mainstream Anarchist philosophy, which is fine as long as you realise that even Anarchists spin the facts to support their political agenda.

In turn, has the thought ever crossed your mind that you might actually be wrong?


To understand your viewpoint one doesn't need to read a lot of history so much as one needs to read a lot of Anarchist literature. The distinction between the leftist state and the "true left" as the working class is a belief that is only promoted by Anarchist philosophy.

Asserting that the state identifying with leftist ideology only as a tactic to control the will of the masses is no different than the Anarchist assertion that the true left precludes the state as a means to sow distrust of organised government amongst the same people.

Authoritarianism is not exclusive to either left or rightwing ideologies although it is closely identified with collectivism by many. Stalin spun Marxism to suite his agenda just as Marx spun Friedrich Hegel to create the communist manifesto. Does that make Marx any less of a socialist?

Only an Anarchist would paint the Bolsheviks as rightwing. Marxism espouses a degree of statism as a necessary step in social transformation and while the subject was responsible for the split between the Anarchists and Bolsheviks, the idea that statism is a right wing philosophy is unique to Anarchist anti-statism ideology.

The left/right paradigm was born from the French revolution with the left favouring rule by the people and the right supporting the Monarchy. The term was co-opted by Marx 50 years later to describe the proletariat while it was used to describe the completely unrelated progressive movement in the U.S. at the same time.

As a history buff as well, I am very comfortable discussing the nuances of the subject matter as well. I would caution the obvious that much of this discussion is philosophical in nature.

Unlike classical mechanics, there are few absolutes meaning we are both familiar with the history of the topic, right and wrong is subjective.
edit on 8-9-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
If you don't like the Right-Wing, just leave them alone.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
If you don't like the Right-Wing, just leave them alone.


Sage advice, I couldn't agree more.








top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join