What we have in common

[guerillaGardner]

There's lots of argument between 'left' and 'right' on this board about what's right and what's wrong, but what do we all agree on? Here are some suggestions which, unless we just don't give a crap either way or are just plain malicious, we perhaps all agree on but just not on the method or logistics of how we make these things happen.

1) We'd like an end to poverty - ideally by helping those in need to fend for themselves and be self reliant rather than relying on handouts.

2) We'd like an end to crime - without having to jail or execute offenders. We'd like some way to stop crime happening in the first place.

3) We'd like an end to war. It's just that we all disagree on why war happens in the first place or who the good guys and bad guys are, but we'd prefer war not to happen anyway.

4) We all want to have happy, comfortable lives which are as carefree as possible but unfortunately happy lives need to be worked at unless you are happy living rough and foraging for food. Conflicts often occur when we rely on others to give us our happy life.

5) We'd probably all rather abortion just wasn't an issue. There is perceived to be a conflict between the needs of the child/foetus and the woman who carries it. We'd rather there was no conflict. When we choose a side in this conflict all our responses are well intentioned, but until we find a way to ensure that there is no conflict between the needs of the expectant mother and the baby/foetus then it's going to be an issue. How can the conflict be resolved? Can we educate people to choose to adopt rather than have their own biological children? Are there other ideas out there for preventing unwanted pregnancies or for creating options for unintentionally pregnant women?

Anyway that's just a summary of possibilities. Can anyone suggest anything else 'left and right' might have in common? If someone puts across an idea that you don't fully agree with what parts can you agree with even if not the full idea. What is the common thread that unites all of us?

[zorra_chiflada]

depends on what you mean by "left" and "right"
if you're talking about republicans and democrats in the US, i wouldn't agree that the democrats are "left" at all, only not as far "right"

so if you're talking about that...
i suppose both agree that capitalism is the best and only way.

[guerillaGardner]

depends on what you mean by "left" and "right"
if you're talking about republicans and democrats in the US, i wouldn't agree that the democrats are "left" at all, only not as far "right"

so if you're talking about that...
i suppose both agree that capitalism is the best and only way.

To what?

[zorra_chiflada]

To what?

for society to run, economically and socially

(i don't necessarily agree with this though)

[QueenAdrock]

My brother was talking about this a few days ago, that we all have the same basic goals...or rather, we'd all like to see some things fixed. I wouldn't say #3 applies to this administration; I seriously don't think they want this war to end, as long as they're getting their sweet oil and kickbacks, and are able to use "We're in the middle of a war" and "I'm a war President" for re-election purposes. Why SHOULD they care if kids are dying? There's more important things that help THEM by keeping the war going. I do agree that if they thought there was a better way to make money and keep their party in power, they'd do it before war, but as of right now, I really doubt they give half a shit over people dying because it's what works.

The other things, I do agree that people in general do want them, however I don't see both right and left coming together and working together on many issues. However, Newt Gingrich and Hillary DID come together to work on a new Health Insurance Bill, so I guess anything's possible. :eek:

[icy manipulator]

i suppose both agree that capitalism is the best and only way.

i say you're right because i'm a realist, but one thing i've always been fascinated is Russian history. after reading everything i have about russia, cuba and marxism i believe communism is a much better system in theory but could never work in practice. Reasons being that everybody on this planet would be corrupted given that power over a country. and also communism only works in a society of perfectionists aiming towards the same goal.

but still, capatilism is a much better system because you should only get out what you put in and not rely on others to fully support you.

i'd say overall i'm a socialist, i wouldn't mind living in a society where i wouldn't have to worry about getting health care if i needed it but couldn't afford it.
i think everyone should be allowed a free pursuit of knowledge without having to pay ridiculous fees,
and i believe there should be decent welfare systems for times of economic downfall

[zorra_chiflada]

i say you're right because i'm a realist, but one thing i've always been fascinated is Russian history. after reading everything i have about russia, cuba and marxism i believe communism is a much better system in theory but could never work in practice. Reasons being that everybody on this planet would be corrupted given that power over a country. and also communism only works in a society of perfectionists aiming towards the same goal.

but still, capatilism is a much better system because you should only get out what you put in and not rely on others to fully support you.

i'd say overall i'm a socialist, i wouldn't mind living in a society where i wouldn't have to worry about getting health care if i needed it but couldn't afford it.
i think everyone should be allowed a free pursuit of knowledge without having to pay ridiculous fees,
and i believe there should be decent welfare systems for times of economic downfall

well, you know, socialism is the transition betweetn capitalism and communism.

communism is basically about each member of society working to their capacity and receiving according to their wants, so it has all of the benefits that you may get from capitalism. but with capitalism, the minority rules the majority.
additionally, communism does not have lack of government, but making the government so big that everyone's in it, so the majority rules the majority.
as for whether it works or not, i don't think many people can answer that objectively because it's been completely demonised. i know through my schooling i was taught that it was bad, and i imagine it would be the same in the US.

[D_Raay]

depends on what you mean by "left" and "right"
if you're talking about republicans and democrats in the US, i wouldn't agree that the democrats are "left" at all, only not as far "right"

so if you're talking about that...
i suppose both agree that capitalism is the best and only way.
I don't agree with that at all... If capitalism is the best we can do, the Human race is in a precarious state indeed.

Capitalism breeds corruption.

[ToucanSpam]

Capitalism breeds corruption.
No, it's power that breeds corruption. Give a man a little bit of control over others and it will go to his head. This applies to both Capitalistic states as well as Socialist societies.

[sam i am]

No, it's power that breeds corruption. Give a man a little bit of control over others and it will go to his head. This applies to both Capitalistic states as well as Socialist societies.

word.

[D_Raay]

No, it's power that breeds corruption. Give a man a little bit of control over others and it will go to his head. This applies to both Capitalistic states as well as Socialist societies.
I was not comparing the two (socialism and capitalism), I was merely pointing out that capitalism is by no means an adequate system of government.

I would agree that is human fallibility that effectually makes both forms of government less than effective.

[ToucanSpam]

I was not comparing the two (socialism and capitalism), I was merely pointing out that capitalism is by no means an adequate system of government.

I would agree that is human fallibility that effectually makes both forms of government less than effective.
You would be right to say capitalism is not an adequate system, but alas, it seems to be the best we have at the moment. Remove the human flaw of being corrupted by power, and we may have something else to discuss. But you cannot force a person to sacrifice a part of their will without using methods that are considered brutal.

[D_Raay]

You would be right to say capitalism is not an adequate system, but alas, it seems to be the best we have at the moment. Remove the human flaw of being corrupted by power, and we may have something else to discuss. But you cannot force a person to sacrifice a part of their will without using methods that are considered brutal.
Exactly, hence we should be exploring other options and striving to achieve... not just settle.

[Ali]

I wouldn't say #3 applies to this administration; I seriously don't think they want this war to end, as long as they're getting their sweet oil and kickbacks, and are able to use "We're in the middle of a war" and "I'm a war President" for re-election purposes. Wars are great for any economy which is largely based on building and selling arms (http://www.canongate.net/Lists/WarPoliticsAndWorldAffairs/10LargestArmsExporters), not to mention supplying its own armed forces (http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/001658.php).

[sam i am]

Wars are great for any economy which is largely based on building and selling arms (http://www.canongate.net/Lists/WarPoliticsAndWorldAffairs/10LargestArmsExporters), not to mention supplying its own armed forces (http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/001658.php).

Ali - why the hell are you SO anti-US. Such vitriol from such a small man... :p

[EN[i]GMA]

I don't agree with that at all... If capitalism is the best we can do, the Human race is in a precarious state indeed.

Capitalism breeds corruption.

How so?

[D_Raay]

GMA']How so?
It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government – for which they are directly responsible.

No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn’t prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. That failure surely couldn’t have come from a dearth of regulations.

What is distinctively absent is any mention that all financial bubbles are saturated with excesses in hype, speculation, debt, greed, fraud, gross errors in investment judgment, carelessness on the part of analysts and investors, huge paper profits, conviction that a new era economy has arrived and, above all else, pie-in-the-sky expectations.

When the bubble is inflating, there are no complaints. When it bursts, the blame game begins. This is especially true in the age of victimization, and is done on a grand scale. It quickly becomes a philosophic, partisan, class, generational, and even a racial issue. While avoiding the real cause, all the finger pointing makes it difficult to resolve the crisis and further undermines the principles upon which freedom and prosperity rest.

[sam i am]

However, Newt Gingrich and Hillary DID come together to work on a new Health Insurance Bill, so I guess anything's possible. :eek:

I'm 99.9% sure this was the 4th sign of the Apocalypse, but I'd have to have gmsisko check for me.... :rolleyes:

[sam i am]

additionally, communism does not have lack of government, but making the government so big that everyone's in it, so the majority rules the majority.

This is the most confusing part of what you stated. If you have government so large that "everyone's in it," who makes decisions? Didn't they try that in Russia between 1918-1922 (when Stalin started his power drive)?

Didn't they end up with a system where they couldn't provide consumer goods and they couldn't keep up in the space race, the technology race, the human rights race, the manufacturing race, the agricultural race, etc with the rest of the capitalistic world?

In a utopian society, with no human nature, communism may be a blissful state of being, but we have consciousness and prgmatism to deal with back here in the real world, zorra. Why don't you join us instead of propogating a failed ideology? :confused:

[zorra_chiflada]

This is the most confusing part of what you stated. If you have government so large that "everyone's in it," who makes decisions? Didn't they try that in Russia between 1918-1922 (when Stalin started his power drive)?

Didn't they end up with a system where they couldn't provide consumer goods and they couldn't keep up in the space race, the technology race, the human rights race, the manufacturing race, the agricultural race, etc with the rest of the capitalistic world?

In a utopian society, with no human nature, communism may be a blissful state of being, but we have consciousness and prgmatism to deal with back here in the real world, zorra. Why don't you join us instead of propogating a failed ideology? :confused:

as i said, we (meaning americans and australians) are in no place to judge whether it works or not. our schoolings are so biased, that we were automatically taught to assume that it was a problem with the ideology.
(stalin killed more communists than anyone - he was not one. he was crazy)
an example of how the government is everyone, there are no corporations, therefore no owners of large corporations.
i know in australia, the government gives money to large corporations (such as the phone company - telstra) this is corporatism, and corporatism is fascism.
communism is not just about a perfect utopian society, it is what benefits the most people. capitalism only benifits the wealthy.
you live in a large house, have a couple of cars and are living quite comfortably, it means that many more people are living in absolute poverty. yes, we have the right to make money and have all the possessions you want, but we has the right to take that off you.
how can you expect me to join you?

[sam i am]

yes, we have the right to make money and have all the possessions you want, but we has the right to take that off you.
how can you expect me to join you?

Who gives you the right to "take that off you?" I know we've debated this before, but I still don't understand how the implementation gets to where you want to go. Do you want everyone to have everything? I'd really appreciate an elucidation of your ideas on how to MAKE IT HAPPEN without the means employed during the Great Leap Forward and Stalin's land seizures of the Kulaks in the 20's and the killing fields of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and the utter devastation of North Korea currently - all ostensibly "communist" regimes. How do you co-opt these ways of history into YOUR vision of communism?

[zorra_chiflada]

well, i know that real communists don't support stalin's russia, or the khmer rouge. people who are so scared of change always bring up those points for shock value. yeah, just call me a stalinist and then everyone will believe it.
come on, labelling me and comparing me to the worst things you can is not proving your point.
i'm not going to go around taking land off of the rich. all i said was that those who are perfectly content to be wealthy while many other suffer, should expect that others are perfectly content to take it off of them.
i'm not expecting to "make it happen."
i don't know if it will happen.
if you want to know where i stand, i'll say this: i am for a society that benefits the most people. the very wealthy are the minority, however in capitalist society, we are working to benefit this minority. logic would suggest that we should work to benefit the majority, who are poor and working class. i'm soooo crazy, aren't it?
can you honesly tell me that you would rather have a society that works for only a small percentage of people? is that why you're trying to make me join you?
i know that politics isn't about logic, and no matter how small a minority the wealthy are, they still rule over everyone.

[ToucanSpam]

On paper, Communism is a wonderfully brilliant thing. In reality, people just are not ready for it. We have never seen communism in it's purest form, and likely won't for a couple decades.


That's my two cents.

[sam i am]

well, i know that real communists don't support stalin's russia, or the khmer rouge. people who are so scared of change always bring up those points for shock value. yeah, just call me a stalinist and then everyone will believe it.
come on, labelling me and comparing me to the worst things you can is not proving your point.
i'm not going to go around taking land off of the rich. all i said was that those who are perfectly content to be wealthy while many other suffer, should expect that others are perfectly content to take it off of them.
i'm not expecting to "make it happen."
i don't know if it will happen.
if you want to know where i stand, i'll say this: i am for a society that benefits the most people. the very wealthy are the minority, however in capitalist society, we are working to benefit this minority. logic would suggest that we should work to benefit the majority, who are poor and working class. i'm soooo crazy, aren't it?
can you honesly tell me that you would rather have a society that works for only a small percentage of people? is that why you're trying to make me join you?
i know that politics isn't about logic, and no matter how small a minority the wealthy are, they still rule over everyone.

Well, we might veer into the "human nature" thread with your queries, but I just get frustrated with the constant buzz of how horrible everything is and how the poor and poverty are so prevalent. The statitstics in the US (I don't know about Australia or other capitalistic societies) show that the bottom 10% of wage earners, after ten years, are almost always in the middle and upper 10% of wage earners. We have a MEANS, through the progression of capital, to lift people out of poverty : it's called WORK.

Those who work, save, and buy homes and goods, have a BETTER life. Even the "poor" in the US have cars and TV's.

Now, in Third World countries, which are NOT capitalistic societies, you have rampant corruption, poverty and disease, and the "rich" truly are a minority that rules over the vast majority and takes the wealth provided by other nations for their own elite good. This even happened in the Soviet Union, if you'll recall, and China right now.

Finally, I guess the reason that most use the examples of "communist" regimes from the past and present is that those are the only ones that have come to fruition. At least ostensibly, all of the examples I gave were "Communists." So, if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck....it's probably a duck.... ;)

[zorra_chiflada]

^venezuela?
edit - in response to toucan spam

[sam i am]

On paper, Communism is a wonderfully brilliant thing. In reality, people just are not ready for it. We have never seen communism in it's purest form, and likely won't for a couple decades.


That's my two cents.

What is it's "purest form?" Without human nature or intelligence or sense of self?

Never gonna happen as long as we are biologically based beings. Maybe in a robot society.... Or if we all became Jedi Knights (y) :D

[ToucanSpam]

What is it's "purest form?" Without human nature or intelligence or sense of self?

Never gonna happen as long as we are biologically based beings. Maybe in a robot society.... Or if we all became Jedi Knights (y) :D

There can be intelligence. Rwad Thomas More's utopia. IN that society, they were very well educated in the liberal arts.

Hey. Do not being Jedi into this. I will go Star Wars on this thread. :D

[sam i am]

^venezuela?

Would you characterize Hugo Chavez as a "communist?" Is he nationalizing industry? Is he allocating resources from the rich to the poor? Have you seen their economy recently?

Also, he's arming his military to the teeth. Food out of the mouths of the poor to feed the military....where have we seen that before? hmmmm? Oh, yes : North Korea. That'll probably work out well, I imagine... :rolleyes:

Really like your examples, zorra, but it's good to have some more historical data to draw on....

[sam i am]

There can be intelligence. Rwad Thomas More's utopia. IN that society, they were very well educated in the liberal arts.

Hey. Do not being Jedi into this. I will go Star Wars on this thread. :D

Bring it on, young padawan. ;)

Thomas More's Utopia, eh? Was this is an actual society that existed? Where are all the hosannas praising this fantastic society to the world? Oh, it doesn't EXIST? Sorry, thought you might have me there....whew.... :D

[zorra_chiflada]

Well, we might veer into the "human nature" thread with your queries, but I just get frustrated with the constant buzz of how horrible everything is and how the poor and poverty are so prevalent. The statitstics in the US (I don't know about Australia or other capitalistic societies) show that the bottom 10% of wage earners, after ten years, are almost always in the middle and upper 10% of wage earners. We have a MEANS, through the progression of capital, to lift people out of poverty : it's called WORK.


are you serious?
well, glad to see that you're so content about things.
i'm sorry that the fact that people are poor annoys you so much.
anyway, i don't expect any americans on here to believe anything i say. they are less open to ideas than any other country, because of this attitude that "everthing is just fine and dandy."

[zorra_chiflada]

anyway, i don't like how these threads in political discussion turn into "rag on zorra for her political beliefs" come on, i'm nowhere near as crazy as sisko.

[ToucanSpam]

Zorra I love you and I will fly under your red banner. :D

[zorra_chiflada]

meh, you don't have to.
it's more of a hobby. zount's the one that is more knowledgable on this than me. he could probably describe it better, and do it more justice.

[sam i am]

anyway, i don't like how these threads in political discussion turn into "rag on zorra for her political beliefs" come on, i'm nowhere near as crazy as sisko.

you are not crazy like sisko. You are intelligent and witty and a worthy person to read.

But, it partially depends on why you come to these threads, I've found.

I know Documad, for example, comes "just for fun." You, zorra, may come because you want to read interesting topics and see what others think in order to educate and enlighten yourself while also conveying your deeply held beliefs to others.

If you are in the latter category, you're closer to I in your outlook on life.

I guess I'm just a pragmatic optimist. I want to convice others, in the marketplace of ideas, that they should listen and investigate what true conservatism means. I know it betters my life, and many others who are like minded. If I'm happier and feel more empowered with my system of belief, why WOULDN'T I want others to share the same level of joy and prosperity at how great life is every day?

Watch the flames come now! Vini Vidi Vici!

[ToucanSpam]

I wanna hear more from Zount. He sounds like he may have read Utopia. :D

[zorra_chiflada]

I wanna hear more from Zount. He sounds like he may have read Utopia. :D

he's at work :(

[STANKY808]

The statitstics in the US (I don't know about Australia or other capitalistic societies) show that the bottom 10% of wage earners, after ten years, are almost always in the middle and upper 10% of wage earners. We have a MEANS, through the progression of capital, to lift people out of poverty : it's called WORK.

Those who work, save, and buy homes and goods, have a BETTER life. Even the "poor" in the US have cars and TV's.



by Aaron Bernstein
First published in Business Week December 1, 2003

"...The result has been an erosion of one of America's most cherished values: giving its people the ability to move up the economic ladder over their lifetimes. Historically, most Americans, even low-skilled ones, were able to find poorly paid janitorial or factory jobs, then gradually climb into the middle class as they gained experience and moved up the wage curve. But the number of workers progressing upward began to slip in the 1970s, when the post-World War II productivity boom ran out of steam. Upward mobility diminished even more in the 1980s as globalization and technology slammed blue-collar wages.

But new research suggests that, surprisingly, the best economy in 30 years did little to get America's vaunted upward mobility back on track. The new studies, which follow individuals and families over many years, paint a paradoxical picture: Even as the U.S. economy was bursting with wealth in the 1990s, minting dot-com millionaires by the thousands, conventional companies were cutting the middle out of career ladders, leaving fewer people able to better their economic position over the decade.

During the 1990s, relative mobility -- that is, the share of Americans changing income quintiles in any direction, up or down -- slipped by two percentage points, to 62%, according to an analysis of decade-long income trends through 2001 by Jonathan D. Fisher and David S. Johnson, two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While two points may not sound like much, it's bad news given how much progress might have been made amid explosive growth. Essentially, says University of Chicago economics professor and Nobel laureate James J. Heckman, "the big finding in recent years is that the notion of America being a highly mobile society isn't as true as it used to be."



Can you point me to the source of your "10% of wage earners" information?

[sam i am]

During the 1990s, relative mobility -- that is, the share of Americans changing income quintiles in any direction, up or down -- slipped by two percentage points, to 62%, according to an analysis of decade-long income trends through 2001 by Jonathan D. Fisher and David S. Johnson, two economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Can you point me to the source of your "10% of wage earners" information?

62% mobility sounds pretty darn good to me. That means only 38% remained static - probably children and the elderly on more of a fixed income, if I don't miss my guess.

This actually doesn't refute my argument, but does add nuance to it. It's never as good as it could be, but it's alot worse under most systems.

[guerillaGardner]

Lots of interesting responses in this thread, but surprisingly few offering suggestions of common ground across the political spectrum.

One possibility for common ground that I found was the idea of localisation - bringing production and consumption closer together. I found that the idea of buying only home grown products fitted in on opposing ends of the political spectrum. In talking with members of the British National Party I found that some advocated this, while it's always been a big part of the green agenda. In both cases the motivation was different but it all came to the same thing - local scale economies.

Indeed when a line of produce in Australia a few years ago was marketed, with major success, as being purely Australian and made only from Australian sourced goods, there was some debate over whether this was a good thing or a bad thing - whether it was jingoistic or whether it was localisation in action.

The question is are there any other activities like this that although motivated differently work out almost the same?