I disagree.
Left is more than wealth. Left is often reffered to socialism or liberalism. Either cases have at its core nothing to do with wealthy at all. Its not because your local politics have the left as wealthy fuckwads that this is everywhere.
That said, dont get me wrong, this is some terrible shit to say and the wealthy should piss off.
The principle of “let consenting adults do whatever they want” is absolutelly compatible with some people having almost all of the money and others starving, but the principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number” is not.
Liberalism (the first) has nothing to do with Left (the second).
Now if Liberalism was actually about maximizing Freedom in all its senses, then it would end up mainly concerning itself with how Human Basic Needs and Money and Ownership Law (mainly of Land) are used to limit the Freedom of most people, but “strangelly” I have never once heard or read a “liberal” mention how the very structures that keep a few in wealth limit the freedom of everybody else.
Trully thinking liberals could end up as lefties but they always stop at the boundary of reducing wealth discrimination, liberalizing access to land anf in general doing things that would free people who are born landless (i.e. most people) from being forced to work for others under other people’s conditions for a roof over their heads and food on their tables.
De facto present day liberals as are hard right (though socially liberal, they’re extremelly conservative in everything else).
That’s some authoritarian delusion. Liberalism gives everyone tools to achieve their own goals. What you want is to erase individuality for some imaginary greater cause. Which is exactly what all and every totalitarian regime is about.
Libertarians are for example in favour of Private Education, something which gives better tools to those born from wealthier parents who can afford the better schools than to those born from poor parent’s who can: providing people who were lucky to pop-out of a wealthier vagina more/better tools hence more/better chances in life than others is literally the opposite of Meritocracy.
Ditto for Inheritance legislation: it makes even the most inept, lazy-ass, destructive scion of a wealthy family out there have far more chances and power than even the smartest, most hardworking, most able creator out there from poor families.
And lets not forget keeping Land Ownership as is now locking in centuries (in some countries millenia) of the most anti-meritocratic methods of acquring it and a gigantic advantage which is passed down the generations through inheritance, all this, again, the very opposite of a “fair playing field where everybody has a chance”.
Libertarianism just wants to remove the Power of the State, a system which is managed by people elected by citizens in a “all votes count the same” process, by the Power of Money, which is mainly the product of past injustices, dynastic and were power has an extremelly uneven distribution (with some having hundreds of billions of times more power than others).
By wanting to weaken the fair playing field (one person one vote) in access to power which is vote by severely reducing that which that power controls (i.e. reducing the State) and replace it by an extremelly unever form of power, Money, which is so unfair that, like in the times of the Monarchy, it is Power which is mainly inherited, Liberarians are some of the most anti-Democratic anti-Freedom people out there, not to mention extraordinary hypocrites.
You can disagree with me all you want. You’re extremely misinformed, though. An entire life of propaganda made you believe some weird shit, but socialism is unequivocally about wealth distribution and liberalism is undoubtedly right-wing.
I didn’t understand your comment about local politics. Mostly because you can’t possibly know where i’m from, and calling the left ‘wealthy fuckwads’ is just bizarre.
No. I’ve read enough theory to know that the left understands the world as a struggle between two classes: capitalists and workers.
The right believes in meritocracy, the invisible hand of the market, and risking capital as the most valuable asset.
Of course there are poor people leaning right. There is not a single leftist billionaire, though.
…oh, and in case you’re from the United States (you act as if you were): Both of your political parties are right-wing. Your ‘radical leftist politicians’ are centrists at best. Right-wingers don’t become leftists because they’re ok with giving some human rights to the population.
Funny how those who don’t want to be part of society still want all the protections and infrastructure provided by society.
They never think about the money they use, shops they visit, the roads they drive on, the clean water they drink, the power they use, the food they access, the regulations and laws keeping them from being forced into slavery or poisoned or killed by their neighbour who wants their stuff, the access to health services, firefighters, police… They somehow never think about what society gives them only what they can take without having to give back.
I think we should let them be free of society, the historical term for that is outlaw, you’re free to be free from society, come back and you get shot.
And your argument about authoritarianism is just stupid, socially agreed upon authority is a necessity for maintaining any set of rules.
I swear you spend hours upon hours just being wrong on the Internet on purpose.
You just described the left part of left vs right.
I disagree.
Left is more than wealth. Left is often reffered to socialism or liberalism. Either cases have at its core nothing to do with wealthy at all. Its not because your local politics have the left as wealthy fuckwads that this is everywhere.
That said, dont get me wrong, this is some terrible shit to say and the wealthy should piss off.
A) Liberalism is not left wing
B) Socialism, at its core, is about seizing control of the means of production, as it is they which create wealth.
Liberalism is the ONLY left wing.
The principle of “let consenting adults do whatever they want” is absolutelly compatible with some people having almost all of the money and others starving, but the principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number” is not.
Liberalism (the first) has nothing to do with Left (the second).
Now if Liberalism was actually about maximizing Freedom in all its senses, then it would end up mainly concerning itself with how Human Basic Needs and Money and Ownership Law (mainly of Land) are used to limit the Freedom of most people, but “strangelly” I have never once heard or read a “liberal” mention how the very structures that keep a few in wealth limit the freedom of everybody else.
Trully thinking liberals could end up as lefties but they always stop at the boundary of reducing wealth discrimination, liberalizing access to land anf in general doing things that would free people who are born landless (i.e. most people) from being forced to work for others under other people’s conditions for a roof over their heads and food on their tables.
De facto present day liberals as are hard right (though socially liberal, they’re extremelly conservative in everything else).
Most people who call themselves liberals don’t even know what that word means, and just think it means gay rights and anti racial oppression.
That’s some authoritarian delusion. Liberalism gives everyone tools to achieve their own goals. What you want is to erase individuality for some imaginary greater cause. Which is exactly what all and every totalitarian regime is about.
BULLSHIT!
Libertarians are for example in favour of Private Education, something which gives better tools to those born from wealthier parents who can afford the better schools than to those born from poor parent’s who can: providing people who were lucky to pop-out of a wealthier vagina more/better tools hence more/better chances in life than others is literally the opposite of Meritocracy.
Ditto for Inheritance legislation: it makes even the most inept, lazy-ass, destructive scion of a wealthy family out there have far more chances and power than even the smartest, most hardworking, most able creator out there from poor families.
And lets not forget keeping Land Ownership as is now locking in centuries (in some countries millenia) of the most anti-meritocratic methods of acquring it and a gigantic advantage which is passed down the generations through inheritance, all this, again, the very opposite of a “fair playing field where everybody has a chance”.
Libertarianism just wants to remove the Power of the State, a system which is managed by people elected by citizens in a “all votes count the same” process, by the Power of Money, which is mainly the product of past injustices, dynastic and were power has an extremelly uneven distribution (with some having hundreds of billions of times more power than others).
By wanting to weaken the fair playing field (one person one vote) in access to power which is vote by severely reducing that which that power controls (i.e. reducing the State) and replace it by an extremelly unever form of power, Money, which is so unfair that, like in the times of the Monarchy, it is Power which is mainly inherited, Liberarians are some of the most anti-Democratic anti-Freedom people out there, not to mention extraordinary hypocrites.
Why the hell are you talking about Libertarians? You realise that you don’t have any arguments, right?
Why do you choose to be wrong?
You can disagree with me all you want. You’re extremely misinformed, though. An entire life of propaganda made you believe some weird shit, but socialism is unequivocally about wealth distribution and liberalism is undoubtedly right-wing.
I didn’t understand your comment about local politics. Mostly because you can’t possibly know where i’m from, and calling the left ‘wealthy fuckwads’ is just bizarre.
So you’re trying to gaslight people into thinking that wealthy people only represent the left or the right? Rofl.
No. I’ve read enough theory to know that the left understands the world as a struggle between two classes: capitalists and workers.
The right believes in meritocracy, the invisible hand of the market, and risking capital as the most valuable asset.
Of course there are poor people leaning right. There is not a single leftist billionaire, though.
…oh, and in case you’re from the United States (you act as if you were): Both of your political parties are right-wing. Your ‘radical leftist politicians’ are centrists at best. Right-wingers don’t become leftists because they’re ok with giving some human rights to the population.
No. The true left is all about freedoms and rights - liberal democracy. What you call left is the same authorisation shit as right.
Cringe
Yes, pseudo-lefties are cringe indeed.
deleted by creator
It works that way pretty much everywhere but the US.
deleted by creator
Nice subject change!
deleted by creator
Not everyone wants to own everything. Or even be a part of society. Respecting others is something authoritarian regimes can’t stand.
Funny how those who don’t want to be part of society still want all the protections and infrastructure provided by society.
They never think about the money they use, shops they visit, the roads they drive on, the clean water they drink, the power they use, the food they access, the regulations and laws keeping them from being forced into slavery or poisoned or killed by their neighbour who wants their stuff, the access to health services, firefighters, police… They somehow never think about what society gives them only what they can take without having to give back.
I think we should let them be free of society, the historical term for that is outlaw, you’re free to be free from society, come back and you get shot.
And your argument about authoritarianism is just stupid, socially agreed upon authority is a necessity for maintaining any set of rules.
I swear you spend hours upon hours just being wrong on the Internet on purpose.
deleted by creator