Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Authoritarian

Leftists

Recommended Posts

I had a hunt around the internet the other night for a few socialist websites as I get bored with agreeing with most of the posters here. I found this site which seemed ideal. Unfortunately though they're a very senstive bunch and clamp down on any criticism - however mild - with an authoritarian zeal.

For example they ran a story about a tory blogger, the guy in question had said that he wanted George Galloway to die. I commented that this is unacceptable but have often seen trade unionists etc wearing "death to Thatcher" T shirts, and we should try and be even handed on the matter. It was deleted after about 5 mins!

It's pretty sad really when a whole group of people won't even acknowledge that a different point of view exists, rather than debate the point they'd prefer to eliminate their opponents. Which is why they're so dangerous when they make it power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be left wing as a teenager. I used to think right wingers were evil bastards and lefties were the good guys in straightforward light vs. darkness kind of way.

In my student days I actually got to meet real hardcore lefties and couldn't believe what oddballs many/most of them were.

Firstly, most were more interested in being angry and anti thing more than giving a stuff about the issues. Many wanted to 'bash the fash' in a way that was not much different to how groups of footy hooligans wanted to bash a rival firm.

Some were just laughably anti white hetero male English in a comical, stereotyped way - even though that's what most of them were. WASPs were evil while any misogynist fundamentalist from the 12 century with brown skin was a victim of racist oppression.

When some of them started saying that families of the future should be, presumably lesbian, female single parents and kids to avoid the inevitable oppressive patriarchy of men it was the last straw. Make no mistake that the generous benefits given to single mums did not just come about thanks to 'do gooders' trying to be kind to kids and poor mothers but were in large part formed by people actually following this kind of zany ideology.

I declared the radical left a bunch of dickheads who couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery even if they wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be left wing as a teenager. I used to think right wingers were evil bastards and lefties were the good guys in straightforward light vs. darkness kind of way.

In my student days I actually got to meet real hardcore lefties and couldn't believe what oddballs many/most of them were.

Firstly, most were more interested in being angry and anti thing more than giving a stuff about the issues. Many wanted to 'bash the fash' in a way that was not much different to how groups of footy hooligans wanted to bash a rival firm.

Some were just laughably anti white hetero male English in a comical, stereotyped way - even though that's what most of them were. WASPs were evil while any misogynist fundamentalist from the 12 century with brown skin was a victim of racist oppression.

When some of them started saying that families of the future should be, presumably lesbian, female single parents and kids to avoid the inevitable oppressive patriarchy of men it was the last straw. Make no mistake that the generous benefits given to single mums did not just come about thanks to 'do gooders' trying to be kind to kids and poor mothers but were in large part formed by people actually following this kind of zany ideology.

I declared the radical left a bunch of dickheads who couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery even if they wanted to.

The first part is an outline of what I imagine most labour mps were like at uni/poly/TUC congress in the 60s and 70s. The last line is them in power for the last 10 years.

(edit for typo)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be left wing as a teenager. I used to think right wingers were evil bastards and lefties were the good guys in straightforward light vs. darkness kind of way.

In my student days I actually got to meet real hardcore lefties and couldn't believe what oddballs many/most of them were.

Firstly, most were more interested in being angry and anti thing more than giving a stuff about the issues. Many wanted to 'bash the fash' in a way that was not much different to how groups of footy hooligans wanted to bash a rival firm.

Some were just laughably anti white hetero male English in a comical, stereotyped way - even though that's what most of them were. WASPs were evil while any misogynist fundamentalist from the 12 century with brown skin was a victim of racist oppression.

When some of them started saying that families of the future should be, presumably lesbian, female single parents and kids to avoid the inevitable oppressive patriarchy of men it was the last straw. Make no mistake that the generous benefits given to single mums did not just come about thanks to 'do gooders' trying to be kind to kids and poor mothers but were in large part formed by people actually following this kind of zany ideology.

I declared the radical left a bunch of dickheads who couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery even if they wanted to.

Good post, I think you've hit the nail on the head there: they are like rival football firms. The hardcore lefties want to fight the BNP "on the streets" if they have to, despite their apparent commitments to values such as tolerance and diversity.

It's the hypocrisy that gets me, I just wonder why they're incapable of recognising it. But perhaps when you've put so much energy into one set of beliefs it's very difficult to admit that you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily IMO.. sort of a different scale:

internationalchart.gif

Good diagram, libspero. The simple left-right paradigm is no longer applicable. I mean, is Bill Gates left or right?

I think I would place myself somewhere in the bottom left corner, although I'm surprised to find the Dalai Lama there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was at University in the late 70's,there seemed to be two different types of lefties.One lot were very intelligent,widely read,and often from hellholes in South America and Africa.The main opposition to their Governments were Marxist/Socialist parties,and they were sympathetic to these.The other type..ye gods.Usually well-off kids from Surrey,who,within days of arriving,started wearing ripped jeans,smoked roll-ups,and pretended to be horny-handed sons of toil.One lad in my Hall put on a fake Yorkshire accent,and claimed to be from Barnsley mining stock.(He was from Wallington,Surrey.)The latter group took themselves very seriously,and were put out that locals thought they were a bunch of plonkers.They had utter contempt for working class,Sun-readers in the local pubs,and Labour ministers in Brown's cabinet reminded me of these types.

Like many people in the 80's,I was a Labour supporter,though we were "Old Labour",not the Cultural Marxist faction of nowadays.We didn't see ourselves as authoritarian,though,and in hindsight we probably weren't..we were pro-legalising cannabis,pro-new Age Travellers,and big reggae fans.Cultural Marxists,on the other hand,I find really sinister.They want to achieve what Uncle Joe Stalin did,but in the sneakiest ways possible,wrecking the communities,families and country bit by bit on a daily basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never met a true lefty that wasn't also an authoritarian, it seems to go with the territory. If your ideology involves doing things for people (whether they want you to or not) then it's a natural consequence that the people will need to be controlled by the state. If, on the other hand, your ideology involves doing as little for people as is consistent with a civilised society, then you're much less likely to be a control freak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a hunt around the internet the other night for a few socialist websites as I get bored with agreeing with most of the posters here. I found this site which seemed ideal. Unfortunately though they're a very senstive bunch and clamp down on any criticism - however mild - with an authoritarian zeal.

That's the trouble with "zeal"! Everyone else is wrong! Not particulary the sole preserve of leftists, but they seem to be good at it!

I think it's a sort of religion! :huh:

Remember the "zeal" of "privatisation", back in the 80's!Not lefty at all, but the meme of the time!

People follow an ideology, like "the shoe of the prophet" in the Monty Python film, without thinking! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never met a true lefty that wasn't also an authoritarian, it seems to go with the territory. If your ideology involves doing things for people (whether they want you to or not) then it's a natural consequence that the people will need to be controlled by the state. If, on the other hand, your ideology involves doing as little for people as is consistent with a civilised society, then you're much less likely to be a control freak.

The big problem with that is that some people, myself included, do not believe that doing as little as possible for people is consistent with a civilised society. It lets the greediest, most selfish, least moralistic backstab their way to the top whilst everyone else not willing to sell themselves into slavery with them can go and starve. That's clearly an exaggeration, but so are most of the anti-left views. It's also the result of doing nothing, not doing as little as possible, but find me anyone who doesn't agree with doing as little as possible. The debate is entirely about how much is as little as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem with that is that some people, myself included, do not believe that doing as little as possible for people is consistent with a civilised society. It lets the greediest, most selfish, least moralistic backstab their way to the top whilst everyone else not willing to sell themselves into slavery with them can go and starve. That's clearly an exaggeration, but so are most of the anti-left views. It's also the result of doing nothing, not doing as little as possible, but find me anyone who doesn't agree with doing as little as possible. The debate is entirely about how much is as little as possible.

Very astute observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never met a true lefty that wasn't also an authoritarian, it seems to go with the territory. If your ideology involves doing things for people (whether they want you to or not) then it's a natural consequence that the people will need to be controlled by the state. If, on the other hand, your ideology involves doing as little for people as is consistent with a civilised society, then you're much less likely to be a control freak.

I think the appeal of the left is that you can blame "the oppressors" for your problems and thus avoid taking responsibility for yourself. The midset seems to be built on jealousy of what others have, but has no desire to find out how others became wealthy and maintained their wealth. In my own experience, some of the nicest people with the biggest hearts I have ever met have been entrepreurial business-builders who are always willing to help out in the community.

Put 1 lefty in a bucket and in time he will climb out. Put 10 lefties in a bucket and none of them will ever get out; for as one gets a hand-hold on the rim, the others will grab him and pull him back down. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, fundamentally, yes.

Just stream of consciousness here, but basic tenets of left wing ideologies, such as redistribution of wealth and the common ownership of the means of production require that everyone must conform and allow themselves to be controlled or it will not work (everyone except Orwell's piggies in the farmhouse, of course). Extrapolate this into other policy areas, stick a hat and lipstick on it, but it still fundamentally runs through leftist ideology in the same way that the words 'Clacton on Sea' might run through a stick of rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, fundamentally, yes.

Just stream of consciousness here, but basic tenets of left wing ideologies, such as redistribution of wealth and the common ownership of the means of production require that everyone must conform and allow themselves to be controlled or it will not work (everyone except Orwell's piggies in the farmhouse, of course). Extrapolate this into other policy areas, stick a hat and lipstick on it, but it still fundamentally runs through leftist ideology in the same way that the words 'Clacton on Sea' might run through a stick of rock.

Those are basic tenets of fairly far left ideologies, not any left wing ideology, particularly about common ownership of means of production. Wealth redistribution is a bit more common to most left wing views, with a lot of variation about how far it should go. Anyone who doesn't agree with the concept disturbs me to be honest, although rejecting it in practice because you can't think of a just means of doing so would be fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem with that is that some people, myself included, do not believe that doing as little as possible for people is consistent with a civilised society. It lets the greediest, most selfish, least moralistic backstab their way to the top whilst everyone else not willing to sell themselves into slavery with them can go and starve. That's clearly an exaggeration, but so are most of the anti-left views. It's also the result of doing nothing, not doing as little as possible, but find me anyone who doesn't agree with doing as little as possible. The debate is entirely about how much is as little as possible.

People are greedy and corrupt though. Doesnt matter if they work for ICI or the RAF, whether a company pays their bills or the taxpayer. If an oppurtunity arises, theyll put themselves first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Day by day the left has more and more going for it as more and more of us realise that the capitalist system has become an illusion.

A lot of corporate "wealth" was actually debt backed up by ever-rising property values. If the public spending cuts are as savage as we're led to believe they will be, the grass-roots Lib Dems will force the early end of the coalition. I predicted that David Miliiband could be PM within 2 years. Clearly that won't be the case now, after the surprise outcome of the Labour leadership election, but I think Ed Miliband could be PM within 2 years if the coaltition breaks up.

And before anyone mentions New Labour under Gordon Brown being 'left' - a government that robbed the poor to pay the rich (as with the bank bailouts) is NOT left-wing.

To those rightists on here, I ask the question: "Could your job be done by a volunteer?" If so, in 2 year's time when you've been replaced by a voluntary library assistant / waiter / train driver / police officer / lawyer / farm labourer or whatever, you might find yourself lurching leftwards! If anyone has ever said to you "I wouldn't mind your job - I'd do it for nothing!", even in jest, then you're probably vunerable to voluntarisation.

Watch that word - 'Voluntarisation' - it's the buzzword in the chambers of many county and district councils now, not to mention the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, fundamentally, yes.

Just stream of consciousness here, but basic tenets of left wing ideologies, such as redistribution of wealth and the common ownership of the means of production require that everyone must conform and allow themselves to be controlled or it will not work (everyone except Orwell's piggies in the farmhouse, of course). Extrapolate this into other policy areas, stick a hat and lipstick on it, but it still fundamentally runs through leftist ideology in the same way that the words 'Clacton on Sea' might run through a stick of rock.

Socialism is not about redistribution of wealth, it is about getting your fair share in the first place, hence co-ownership of the means of production.

Perhaps you could explain how co-owning a business is 'being controlled' more than reporting to a business owner?

Just as the authorities like corporate capitalism, they like statist socialism because they get to control the means of production via the state and also redistribute wealth as they see fit. However to apply this to all types of socialism is just silly.

The argument is always made that socialism needs a state to enforce it because it is unnatural, but perhaps someone could explain how co-ownership of a business and receiving your fair share of the proceeds is unnatural?

There have been plenty of threads on here about banning and controlling things that people don't like - but they haven't been started by 'leftists'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that in a way, the Police Force is a left wing conception. After all, they were only set up in the 1820's, so for centuries before, people were apparently happy to let gangsters (who called themselves aristocracy) grab everything.

Although I hate and despise the Labour Party, I cannot help but think that there are many occaisions when authoritarianism is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that in a way, the Police Force is a left wing conception. After all, they were only set up in the 1820's, so for centuries before, people were apparently happy to let gangsters (who called themselves aristocracy) grab everything.

Although I hate and despise the Labour Party, I cannot help but think that there are many occaisions when authoritarianism is required.

I think the idea that authoritarianism is a left wing concept is a recent one espoused by libertarians. Traditional conservatives and many considered right wing in the past were perfectly happy with the state. Many consider it necessary to maintain the market system. Even libertarians see it as necessary to defend property rights. The idea of the left being anti-authoritarian was a given when I was younger and the stories on this thread about 'lefty' types are part of that image - until recently the left was considered anti-war and pro-freedom in social matters - the 'long suicide note' Labour manifesto is an example - anti ID cards, anti nuclear weapons, anti EU. Christopher Hitchens and others have criticised the left for abandoning these principles, so they must have had them in the first place.

From Wikipedia on the political spectrum -

"Milton Rokeach claimed that the defining difference between the left and right was that the left stressed the importance of equality more than the right. Despite his criticisms of Eysenck's tough-tender axis, Rokeach also postulated a basic similarity between communism and nazism, claiming that these groups would not value freedom as greatly as more conventional social democrats, democratic socialists and capitalists would, and he wrote that "the two value model presented here most resembles Eysenck's hypothesis."[13]

To test this model, Milton Rokeach and his colleagues used content analysis on works exemplifying nazism (written by Adolf Hitler), communism (written by V.I. Lenin), capitalism (by Barry Goldwater) and socialism (written by various socialist authors).

Multiple raters made frequency counts of sentences containing synonyms for a number of values identified by Rokeach, including freedom and equality, and Rokeach analyzed these results by comparing the relative frequency rankings of all the values for each of the four texts:

In excerpts from...

Socialists (socialism) - Freedom ranked 1st, Equality ranked 2nd

Hitler (nazism) - Freedom ranked 16th, Equality ranked 17th

Goldwater (capitalism) - Freedom ranked 1st, Equality ranked 16th

Lenin (communism) - Freedom ranked 17th, Equality ranked 1st

Later studies using samples of American ideologues[14] and American presidential inaugural addresses[15] were consistent with this model."

Interesting reading for many, I imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think socialism is inherently authoritarian. I read recently on a left-wing site some anarchist was looking to collectivise anarchist efforts to fight the cuts (to the state). Oh, the irony.

But then so is capitalism as we know it. Declaring 'property' (by which I mean land 'ownership', not your personal possessions) a right and then using the full force of the state to enforce it is massively authoritarian. No one made the land and it was taken from common/no ownership by force. If you're not even allowed to exist in a space without paying a mint in tax, rent or mortgage payment you are a serf.

In 2010 I just can't get worked up about inequality and poverty though. As a young graduate worker living in my HMO slum on low pay I knew that benefits chavs and asylum seekers were materially better off than me and didn't need to labour as much - but I didn't get worked up about it as, aside from a dull job, I was actually happy enough living a frugal no-money life. Families with TVs and Wiis in housing that doesn't leak are not in poverty.

I couldn't really care less if rich people are swanning around in Mercs, embedding diamonds in their teeth or whatever. It's only the unfair access to land and accommodation that bothers me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think socialism is inherently authoritarian. I read recently on a left-wing site some anarchist was looking to collectivise anarchist efforts to fight the cuts (to the state). Oh, the irony.

But then so is capitalism as we know it. Declaring 'property' (by which I mean land 'ownership', not your personal possessions) a right and then using the full force of the state to enforce it is massively authoritarian. No one made the land and it was taken from common/no ownership by force. If you're not even allowed to exist in a space without paying a mint in tax, rent or mortgage payment you are a serf.

In 2010 I just can't get worked up about inequality and poverty though. As a young graduate worker living in my HMO slum on low pay I knew that benefits chavs and asylum seekers were materially better off than me and didn't need to labour as much - but I didn't get worked up about it as, aside from a dull job, I was actually happy enough living a frugal no-money life. Families with TVs and Wiis in housing that doesn't leak are not in poverty.

I couldn't really care less if rich people are swanning around in Mercs, embedding diamonds in their teeth or whatever. It's only the unfair access to land and accommodation that bothers me.

One problem is the 'Socially disadvantaged'

To me this a relatively small group of physically or mentally below normal people who I feel should be helped.

Unfortunately, this group has been artificially enlarged by various do-gooders, vote hungry politicians, stupidly naive people who 'Just want to help' (But with our money)

I reckon that all fit adults should be left to sink or swim.

Tough, but all but the most feckless would get by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon that all fit adults should be left to sink or swim.

Tough, but all but the most feckless would get by.

This comes back to the land question, in my opinion. We are all 'socially disadvantaged' as long as land remains in private hands and the rest of the community remain uncompensated. As long as people have access to land or compensation for the private ownership of land ( e.g. Citizen's Income), then I think most would agree with your point. Welfare is a result of the 'seek employment or starve' situation we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the point, Shipbuilder. While other political ideologies allow 'You do what you want' to some extent, it is essential to the application of left wing ideologies that 'You must do what WE want.'Incidentally, I am not a right winger. Not unless you count Orwell as a right winger. I am slightly left of centre myself. But I am also an independent thinker and I like to make my own choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 238 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.