What is a "lefty principle", or should I say what are some?

who said i wanted to talk with you about anything? when you get over your smug, smartazz ways, then maybe... but since you feel the need to insult at every occasion, then there is nothing to talk about...

Those were simple questions, simple observations...

Why should I sit back and let those who are ignorant of socialism parrot ignorant comments about socialism?

I am a socialist.

what makes you think that i want to get insulted by you? are you that arrogant? do you think i am that stupid? like i said, when you wanna get off your high horse, maybe we can talk...

i don't care if your humpty dumpty sitting on a wall, i just don't like your attitude... when you wanna be a little nicer, let me know...

I think meaningful discussion ensues as soon as the participants engage the topic. To engage the topic is not to engage the author. This thread has ignorant comments about socialism. I'm setting that out, just in case, there is a reader who does not know any better.

Ignorance perpetuates itself through public discourse. A necessary 'evil' of "freedom of speech" is the freedom to spread ignorance. A logical consequence of having an ill-funded public educational system is having a lot of naive citizens who believes ignorant talking points. To talk of "lefty" and "righty" stuff is to talk in sweeping overgeneralizations, and is a sign of a lack of understanding, a sign of ignorance.

This is not about you, and this is not about me.

In order to talk meaningfully about socialism, one must first know what socialism is.

Nothing has been shown by anyone who is speaking negatively of socialism to indicate that they even know what socialism entails.

Why do you keep changing the subject?

i never said anything negative about it... i just said it was the same as being a leftist... both want the same things, you want to support the poor, so does the left side... you want programs that benefit as many people as possible, so does the left side... your against big business, so is the left...i'm failing to see why you need to resort to insults to understand that?

If being correct is positive, then the above is negative.



Could it be that you're mistaken in your analysis? Could it be that that mistake is based upon not knowing what socialism is. Could it be that not knowing is ignorance? Could it be that you're becoming offended by my simply stating the case at hand? It is not me resorting to insults, it is me setting things straight. Rather it is you being offended by truth.

i "could be" mistaken about a lot of things, and at the same time, instead of you being so condescending, maybe you could offer some information... you keep telling me i don't know what i'm talking about, and your not putting anything on the table in your behalf... could it be you don't have a clue?

Here's a few principles that I hold to...

1. That he who gains much as a direct result of society owes much to society.
2. That employee owned business models produce better products, happier/healthier employees, greater individual self-direction, better employee relations, boosts personal integrity, reduces the risks of abusive business practices towards employees by the owners, and produces a broader distribution of wealth throughout the society as a whole while resulting in a happier, healthier, more robust nation.
3. From each according to his/her ability to each according to his/her need.
4. That blatant and callous disregard for another human is immoral behavior.
5. That a nation is a group of people working in cooperation to increase the overall wellbeing of the nation as a whole.

I agree with this statement, up to a point...it is for the governments better interest to use this philosophy, they would make more money than a flat rate...people say it punishes the rich, which is a selfish way of thinking, but it really punishes no one... those people got rich here, they can give some back... they are still rich...


i agree with this also, especially if they outlawed unions while doing it.




i don't know what this means



yea, it's immoral... then what?



great idea... it will never happen... sorry, people are just to different and don't understand about opinions...

I'd rather not frame this discussion in terms of what is in a government's best interest. I'm directing the focus upon what is in a nations. People say this and people say that. People often believe whatever they're told by whomever they trust. Trust, itself, is crucial to the dynamic and wellbeing of a nation, and should this conversation continue to grow into something substantial, trust will need to be addressed more concisely for what it is and the role that it plays.

The underlying logical truth here is that without a society, huge amounts of wealth cannot be gained. The current system - as it stands - not only facilitates, but it encourages and rewards blatant and callous disregard towards the society which they benefitted from. It is considered good business practice, and it is unsustainable. Those kind of people and the megacorporations which stand in their place, as to create anonymity, are using their wealth to influence as many politicians and media outlets as they can in order to change the political narrative more to their own liking.

Wealth is power. Power is either delegated or usurped, there is no other way to obtain it. If we allow those who have benefitted the most to use their wealth/power to exhonerate themselves of any and all moral and social obligation to the society which facilitated their priveleged position to begin with, we will have begun to remove the societal foundation. We will have set the stage for the less priveleged people of a nation to have stolen from them, the ability to live a comfortable and simple life should they so choose. We will have framed the very structure of available opportunity in unattainable terms. We will have stolen from them, the ability to reap the fruits of their own labor. We will have stolen from them the ability to compete. We already have. Look at what walmart has done. The system that is in place is simply unsustainable.

We have a very substantial portion of average, everyday people whose very livlihood has been and is being decided by many who have personal profit as a sole motive and do not care about those who they have power over. That is where we are at. We have delegated power over people to those who do not care about the people whom they have power over. It is a recipe for disaster. The wellbeing of the overwhelming majority of this nation's people is not beyond redress and the responsible parties are not beyond reproach.

It will happen, one way or another. It will happen. You have an exponentially growing amount of people who are suffering as a direct result from decisions being made by people who do not care about them personally but have such power over them nonetheless. Power is either usurped or delegated.

Revolution is taking back the power of one's own self-direction, and it can be peaceful or not. This current govt. had damned well better start to acting like and on the behalf of this nation and do something very soon to appease it's people, or it will need to become a police state, another third world country full of suffering people at the hands of their own government.

The wealthy aren't suffering at the hands of the poor, my friend.



Outlaw unions? There would be no need. Unions were/are necessary to combat the slave-labor conditions that employees were being subjected to prior to the current labor laws being put in place - those of which certain members of society are attempting to get abolished. Unions arose out of necessity. If the owners cared about the wellbeing of the employees, the need would not have arose.

Thus, all the talk of stripping unions of the right to collectively bargain, the talk of reverting back to laws that do not take into consideration the wellbeing of the workers is to talk of stripping away one's power over themself and give it to another who does not, or may not care. It is to go back to the dark ages. It is to conveniently forget what we have already learned in practice, so that those who already benefit the most can take even more from those who benefit the least. It is a prima facie example of the ignorance underlying the talking points in some media outlets. I'm not a genius, and I'm definitely not the only one who is aware of this. These approaches are being funded by those who would like for this country to go back to slave-labor conditions. The only way that that will happen is if we take the right to collectively bargain away from the average worker, if we remove the child labor laws, if we do away with minimum wage. In other words if we take away all of the gains that unions have fought long and hard to obtain. There is such talk. Who will benefit the most other than those who've already benefitted the most?

We can thank unions for the following things...

Healthcare options
A 40 hour workweek
Paid holidays
Paid vacations
Paid sick days
Overtime pay
Doubletime pay
Safe working conditions
Employee awareness of potentially life threatening working materials
Creating the middle class

In other words, unions fought for the employees ability to have a fair share of the profits that certain business owners did not share when left up to them.



It means that we help those who cannot help themselves. It means that we afford opportunities for those who have been born into less fortunate circumstances. It means that to whom much is given, much is expected. It means that we ought not revel and praise one another in our financial victories while an entire nation suffers as a result of the practices which allowed the victory. It means that we do not turn a blind eye to the suffering of a society which afforded us the privileged position that we hold. It means that we ought not take action for our own personal financial benefit that we know will cause unnecessary harm to society itself. It means that using people soley as means to a financial end is wrong.

It means that those who have tremendous wealth have tremendous ability, and those who are born into the poorest conditions have the most need. It means that this nation has both.



Then we ought not delegate power to people like that. Then people like that ought not be making decisions that will affect/effect the livlihood of those who they could care less about.



What do you mean that it will never happen? We are such a nation, we've just forgotten what it means to be one because we've sold our nation's soul to the highest bidder. We've put personal profit first and a sustainable nation second. We're a nation run by quite a few self-centered bigots. We're now focusing upon things that are not the problem, in part because the focus is owned. The media is owned. If the media motive is profit, they will say whatever sells, they will focus upon whatever gets the ratings. If the motive is to retain power, if the motive is to increase power, then the people will be left uninformed. If it is to confuse the public, then misinformation will be used.

If the motive is transparency, if the motive is informing the people(which is what freedom of press is all about), if the motive is working in cooperation towards the overall wellbeing of the nation as whole, if the motive is a healthier/happier population of people living comfortably as a result of the reaping the benefits of their own work, then the problems would be solved - because they are not a secret.

I like the idea of employee ownership in a business.

The rest... Not so much..

I have no respect for, nor will I respond to or talk to an admitted Socialist\Communist.

Is that because you have good reason, or is that just an emotional attitude invoked by what those terms mean to you?

the unions might have had there good points in the past, but the idea is outdated now... all they do is hurt more than help now...

How do unions hurt more than help Moe?

look at the recent football lockout... the millions of dollars the players are making in not enough? workers in the auto unions make 45 dollars an hour to turn a screwdriver? the public is the one paying their wage, because the companies have to raise their prices to compensate. i once worked for a company that installed landlines (phones) at the miami beach convention center, and the people that did the show set-up was a shop workers... they made 25-65 dollars an hour, did drugs the whole time they worked, and couldn't get fired, no matter what they screwed up. none of them cared about what they did, there was no reason to, they knew they can't get fired... the government is big enough now, with people in that won't let the companies break labor laws, which is why the unions were started in the first place.