The lefts better argument

(These are some musings from another thread that were going off topic, here they can stand on their own)


**

I’ve always said that the left has the better arguments but the right has the money.

So the more capitalistic a society the more likely it is to have a strong right wing bias.

Those that gain an advantage from such an unequal system are likely to support it or actively help in pushing it’s, supposed, benefits and will attack those that seem in any way to endanger their dominance.

In many areas of the US the left wing argument is hardly (even never) heard, it is talked about in a negative light or in the past tense as if died but is not presented in an unbiased way.

Many Americans end up been right wingers because they end up believing that left wing arguments are not as good as those of the right, but without ever having to understand why or having been confronted with real left wing arguments.

But they think they have.

And so they turn up here.

Some just shout at us and go (or are pushed)

Others cockily think they will have some fun. They come in thinking they will explain to the ‘hippies’ and ‘morons’ just how stupid left wing views are and having left us all in tears move on.

Others genuinely wish to debate, to try and understand why people would have left wing views when they were so patently wrong.

But then they discover something.

Left wing arguments are better.

Unprotected by the barrier of right wing capitalist assumption they find their views crumbling and find they are unable to defend them because they never thought they needed to, because ‘everyone knows right wing views are better’. What is worse they find they cannot refute many ideas presented by the left.

The cocky ones usually end up shouting abuse while the debaters last longer but eventually they slink away or spend more time sniping and sneering ineffectually rather than making any genuine points.




(This was Lying In A Field’s reply to my post).

**

Interesting Balbus, i have been doing a lot of thinking and I think through all the confusion we can put the right/left argument down to this simple explanation:

On the right (believers in capital and economic growth dictating culture and living systems) there is the greedy, and the cynical. The greedy promote pure capitalism because it affords them the opportunity to exploit and they know this. The cynical/stupid (like pointblank) don't believe that a culture can exist fairly and efficiently unless the entire system is dictated by capital and "the market", where those things will determine and provide for human and environmental needs (but obviously they don't). This is mostly due to, like balbus says, the society's right wing bias.

On the left, whilst we may have incredibly conflicting ideas, what unites us is our desire for a society that is dictated by EVERY HUMAN's needs, as well as the Earth's. Capital and economic growth should be secondary concerns, if they are necessary at all.

So....ultimately left wing arguments are better because they are by nature, in the pursuit of truth from a human standpoint, whilst right wing arguments are full of half truths and convenient lies.....for example: "For a country to become better, it needs to produce more children, produce more than it needs, consume more than it needs, give shareholders more rights than the workers....etc"....even if it is at the expense of the environment, human rights and the future because "the economy wont run otherwise"...where a left wing argument might say "Lets scrap this all consuming monster of a system and replace it with one where success is measured by how a nation looks after ALL its people and its resources responsibly, so that the bottom line is no longer the dollar, but the pursuit of happiness"



**



Any comments?

 

Is this taking into account all the wealthy people on the Left like from Hollywood and entertainment for example? I mean people on the right aren't the only ones benefiting from U.S capitalism.

Well capitalism can be apolitical. Capitalist can be found among many political persuasions(liberal,rightwing,moderate,dictators etc).

Rich Liberals:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3656

 

LOL, cute article. He makes it sound like 1 Kerry is the only liberal in the country, 2 that he is the only liberal with money 3 that he is actually liberal by any stretch of the imagination 4 that those who want to raise taxes want to take that money and put it in their pockets rather than use it to help others and society.

I think most people use the term liberal a little too loosely these days.

Granted, I do think that wealthy liberals should put their money where their mouth is and start donating away (I'm a charity by the way, make checks payable to the cutelildeadbear foundation). By all means Kerry could afford to get off some of his money and help out some causes that he believes in, that is assuming he actually does believe in anything that he isn't told to believe in. But hollywood types, I wouldn't exactly call them liberal. Most of the time they have their heads shoved so far up thier own ass they don't know what day it is. They just hop on the cool bandwagon and think they are bucking a trend and making a statement or getting publicity. They don't actually do things that they say they believe in. Can't expect much from them. Though I would really rather they shut the hell up if they aren't going to do anything proactive. But you are right there are some wealthy liberals out there, though I doubt that is what the original poster had in mind. And there really are a few out there who do donate where they can and try to do their part.

On another note, I most definitely come here to debate. I like it. But I'm not right wing by any means, and there are a lot of left leaning people here who also love to debate, its politics, it is meant to be debated, so lets not lump a whole group together. I also come here to learn other people's points of view, and see if there are things that I simply haven't thought of or researched myself yet. I usually don't come here to try to convince anyone of anything, just express myself is all. I simply don't feel it is my place, I would much rather people come to conclusions on their own and believe it whole heartedly rather than say, "oh I belive this because cutelildeadbear gave a better arguement than so and so". That would be flattering, but rather sad and defeating the purpose in my opinion. And to address something else, I am cynical too, but I am far from stupid. Why would being cynical make someone stupid. I'm cynical because I certainly don't believe everything someone tells me. I like to figure things out on my own and piece things together from my own research and experience. I'm cynical of this government because they are flat out liars and they can't be trusted and I don't expect any good to come from them. THat is not to say I lack hope though. So again with the name calling and generalities, lets take them out of the equation here and have a discussion.

Now to the topic at hand. Balbus, I really liked this topic. The left has better arguements but the right has more money. Yup, I've pretty much been saying that for years. Then again it depends on the person who is arguing. I mean there are so many people on the left that simply can't argue a point. They can't captivate people. They can believe in something with all of their heart and give their life for it, but to put it bluntly they don't have the balls that right wingers have. That is one thing I will have to give to the right, they don't shut the fuck up no matter how wrong they know they are. They keep going, I think in an effort to keep themselves convinced. I mean the whole point of the left is to be more tolerant and accepting of other views, and wanting to help others and not be so self absorbed, so by nature we kind of have to stand down on some points, or draw a line somewhere. Clinton (who in my opinion was not left leaning at all, but too left for the right wingers) had charisma, he could walk into a room and command the attention of the audience. People listened to him. Now if we could just find someone like that who actually had a more liberal agenda then maybe this country could get somewhere. I do believe money has a lot to do with it, but it isn't everything either. And I do agree that the left isn't heard as much, but like I said, half of the time it is our own fault because we aren't loud enough.

It's ironic that most of the people I talked to during the last presidential election (people in my community, that I work with, had class with, clients, doctors people at Dunkin Donuts ect. all sorts of people) most of them said that they really agree more with the 3rd party candidates (I'm Green for those who don't know) and would really like to see them in office more often, but they are afraid to vote that way because they look at it as wasting a vote. (which doesn't seem to matter now that votes can be bought and sold). LOL. I just realized that I didn't really add to this discussion at all. I'm sorry I just rambled. I get like that on holiday weekends with a half hour left at work.

Please go on, I'd love to hear more opinions on this topic.

 

Contrary to popular belief the media is not liberal it is mostly conservative, and full with right wingers. This includes all popular media, TV, big newspapers, and the radio. There was study done, which I can't remember by who but it showed how many reporters don't believe in what they report, they only report what they report to serve their corporate leaders and owners. Also, popular media is not news it just feeds people opinions without giving them accurate information to make their own opinions.

The internet is the only source you can get accurate Left point of views without bias and misinformation. The survival of the Left depends on the internet, how long will the internet remain free? Wealthy right wingers are already lobbying to control the internet. Many leftist soldiers, which there are very few of them complain about Leftist websites being blocked on military computers.

If I did not have access to the Internet and just go all my information from school, and popular media 98% I would have been a right winger. This is how powerful right wingers are, their point of views are popular because they have the money and capital to reach wide audiences.

Even popular and mega book stores don't carry much Left material, you have to go on amazon to get what you need. Shit, there is only one small book store that carries counter-culture, activism and leftist material in my city.

 

lol, that is very true just turn on the radio or Fox.

This is where most Leftists just got to get more assertive..

 

I don't know if they do this on purpose or not (the probably do) but most times on TV interviews you have some loud mouth right winger, who uses nothing but character assassination to get his points out and some vocal less leftist who is busy trying to use his reason and rationality while the right winger fires his irrational points.

 

Then why are right wingers complaining about the U.S news media being in favor of liberals?

Do members of the news media report with a liberal bias? Author and former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg and Marvin Kalb, a former NBC and CBS reporter now with the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy address the issue.

PBS NEWSHOUR

FoxNews channel is the only news media outlet I know of thats been associated with being right winged. Most of the others have been called liberal by right wingers in America.

 

because it serves their agenda. This myth does not exist.

most people say CNN is left leaning while most real leftists will disagree.

 

Well, again, the whole system is a sham. Anyone who believes in the Left/Right system is ignorant to the fact that this system is controlled from the top down. These people are buying into a system that has been HANDED to them from the top down.

Those on the Right believe the media is biased to the Left because they are "tough" on Bush. But Bush isn't even a conservative, and the media NEVER touches on the real issues that go beyond the controlled two-sided debate that keeps the masses where they can be manipulated, controlled and confined within a mental box, never thinking about the REAL issues.

Those on the Left believe the media is "conservative" because they aren't tough enough on Bush, when, again, Bush is just a puppet.

Both "sides" are full of shit.

It has nothing to do with Left and Right. The people who control the media are globalists, and they do not follow the system that has been given to the sheeple to follow. Whether the media, depending on the network, has a so-called ""Left" bias, like CNN, or a "Right" bias, like FOX, it's all controlled by the same few people. Anyone who knows anything knows the major media in this country is controlled by no more than just FIVE corporations. Rupert Murdoch is mostly known for owning News Corporation, which is the corporation that owns FOX News. Murdoch owns dozens of other media outlets which are at the opposite end of the controlled "two-sided" system. So is he a liberal or a conservative? He is neither. He is a globalist minion.

The media is controlled by globalism, which is based upon socialism. The same people who control the media want a world government, and a world government is not what I would call liberal or conservative, but rather totalitarian.

 

Reporters do have something of a liberal bias, just because facts really do tend to support a liberal view of the world. If your job is to report what politicians say, and to investigate whether their premises are factually correct and whether their conclusions are logically related to those premises, you can't really help but be somewhat liberal.

But even the basic terms are wrong. By definition, liberals want to make changes to society, while conservatives want to keep things from changing. Yet "conservatives" today have destroyed nearly ALL values that are distinctly "American" and it's liberals who struggle desparately to try to keep things the same.



Support Our Troops.
Shoot A Neocon.

 

Almost everyone after the topic post is on a completely different topic.


This isn't about who is lefty and who is righty or about any specific individuals on either side.

The topic is about which side presents a better arguement.

Left or Right?

And Why...

 

Neither are better because both "sides" have been handed down for the masses to follow like sheep. Those in power couldn't have a better tool for control than the Left/Right system in which they created for the herd to embrace. It's no different than religion, which was also handed down to the masses for similar purposes. It's all about polarity, which leads to divide and conquer, which is exactly what they want. If everyone knew the truth, and that politics was all a scripted movie for the intent of public consumption, there would be no need for Left and Right.

Simply put, the Left/Right argument is a PHONY argument. It's an argument involving talking points that have been spoonfed to the population by the establishment, to get the herd arguing amongst themselves, blind to their real, common enemy.

 

Agreed.

As if it actually matters which side controls the government.

2 sides of 1 coin.

 

Depends on the issue doesn't it?

Question is,which side has the better track record on a particular issue as far as results and what are the criterion being used to determine wether the results were progressive or bad.

For example, I've heard that Reagan's economic policies were good for the country and I've heard that those policies were bad for the country. Maybe it comes down to what criterion those on the left and right are using to determine wether or not Reagan's economic policies were progressive or bad.

 

It is interesting that no one seems to take issue with the main argument put forward by Lying and I, that the left have the better argument.

**

As to the viewpoint that there is no difference between the arguments of the left or the right it seems very, very stupid.

If it isn’t stupid I wish those that claim it would please explain the argument, political viewpoint or political policies they follow that are not biased one way or the other?

The thing is that there have been a number of people here that have claimed to be neither of the right or left, but they have always turn out to have a left or right wing bias, sometimes an extreme bias.

Basically they are deluding themselves to one degree or another or lying to us.

My guess is that some, especially those that refuse to answer even basic questions are barefaced liars.

**

 

I don't think the Left and Right have the same arguements.

But i don't really agree with either.

I do not subscribe to the collectivist ideologies of the political left.*
I do not subscribe to the twisted capitalist version of individualism of the right.

I believe in the idea that the exploitation or oppression of any individual diminishes the freedom and integrity of all.

The Ends do NOT justify the Means.
And the sacrifice of a few are NEVER for the good of all.

Unwavering belief in the freedom of the individual is what keeps anarchists from going down the authoritarian path of the left, right and center.



*sidenote for those who would accuse me of leftism: universal solidarity does not automatically= collectivist ideology.

 

In other words, the left is always telling us that by working with the state or through the state that they are working on behalf of the people, for the the better ment of mankind, when the truth is that ultimately they only pacify us while the state expands like a cancer.

The left would have us believe that the state can "work for us", the realization of this goal is that we all end up working for the State.

 

Shane99

I would first say that I would still regard most of Anarchist thought to be of the left and it has a greater appear to me than the philosophy and arguments of the right.

And so in my opinion you seem to be backing up our argument - that the left has the better argument.

**

As to the other points you raise, I think they are going off the subject of the thread but are so interesting that I think they deserve there own.

I hope you don’t mind if I begin another in the Anarchy section entitled – “Is Anarchy ‘post-leftist’?”

Cheer Balbus

 

I would not dispute the sentiment behind this post, I am sure you have credible arguments. However some of what you say isnt logically consistent and therefore cannot in all seriousness be presented as a challenge to right wing arguments. It is too easily refuted.
BELIEVE ME - I SUPPORT THE LEFT - SO ITS NOT A CRITICISM BUT A CRITIQUE _ THERE IS A DIFFERENCE !

Which left wing arguments? Surely not all left wing arguments are in pursuit of the truth - some are rhetorical propoganda designed to enlist
support and are full of inaccuracies.

What other standpoint is there? - so right wing arguments are also from a human standpoint

And trotsky, lenin,stalin,bakunin,prouhdon, none of these told half truths or lies - ever in their retort against the opposition? you assume arguments have to contain truth - what about logical propositions within a political theory - a theory is neither true or fals till proven so.

That is not a left wing argument - The pursuit of happiness is a human condition - no-one says "hey I know lets make things really crap for ourselves" so really all of us are in pursuit of happiness - right or left.
A better example may have been that a left wing argument would come in the form of the call to a decentralised state at a more manageable level. Centralised states tend to be bigger than the collection of peoploe that it is supposed to represent. By breaking it into small pieces and communalising authority - the collective is bigger than the individual legislative bodies.

I dont think its credible to argue that the right has the upper hand because people are either stupid or lazy or self-interested. I would (and always do) begin with the assumption that people are intelligent. That way it means the left must think a lot harder to win those people over. It isnt that they disagree with your arguments out of refusal to adopt them because the right is safer.
They have seen your arguments and reasoned that they are incomplete.
The laziness is on the side of the left wing - they have not developed a strategy by which to distribute their ideas and propoganda efficiently - and more to the point the arguments are neither well thought out enough, nore are most of them appealing enough to the sensibility of people who have worked very hard for little money. Thosee people struggled to buy property - why should they now call for a system that would either cost more in taxes, or abolish ownership of private land?

You have underestimated how much people like this system - people moan about it - but thats par for the course - we all moan and then we go to work and come home and go shopping. People like doing that - they may not be rich within their own society but they feel a stability that they enjoy - why would anyone radicalise at the risk of their life - who would they be fighting for? why should they fight? how long before people can safely rear a family - they certainly wont bring up kids during a revolution and smaller change just means they go bankrupt - so why radicalise for you?

 

Well Doc

Most of your comments are aimed at Lying’s post so I’ll give him a chance to reply.

But a few points for now.

“The pursuit of happiness is a human condition - no-one says "hey I know lets make things really crap for ourselves" so really all of us are in pursuit of happiness - right or left.”

But we do have many people with right wing views saying that things should be really crap for other people. There are those that believe in some type of social Darwinism where the poor would basically survive or die. We have had a few of them here in these very forums.

I would (and always do) begin with the assumption that people are intelligent.

So do I but I also understand as you must that people can be ill-informed or ignorant, that says nothing about their level of intelligence but about the level of information and education they are subject to.

They have seen your arguments and reasoned that they are incomplete.

I’m sorry for my ignorance but can you back up this statement in relation to the US? My own understanding is that there are few mainstream outlets of truly left wing thought in the US?

As to the right wingers that have come here few have been able to defend their views or been able to present a reasoned argument against those of the left.

As I’ve said most end up leaving, ranting or being insulting.